So, another year: older, grayer, slower and just as uncertain as ever. Everything gets more repetitious, but there are still surprises. You think at 60+ that you know yourself and others close to you pretty well, but you may be in for a shock; or if not a shock, a jolt. Things go along routinely and we fall into a groove with it, and then out of nowhere we get shoved off track, and wondering what the hell hit us. It could be a death in the family, getting fired from a long held job, an unexpected turn in a long-term relationship or anything that sets us off course.
We’re humans. We set courses and try to follow them. We try to make order out of things that don’t always want to stay orderly. When we’re young, routine sounds like the worst thing imaginable. No one says, “I want to have a lot of routine and sameness in my life,” when they’re young. Change, excitement, new adventures – that’s what sparks us.
And then we get older. And older. And there you are at 60+, in the flower of geezerhood, and you like routine; you like sameness and orderliness, and the last thing you want is some change in all that. And it’s inevitable; change, that is.
Change comes, and it comes to everyone no matter how hard they have tried to build their lives resistant to change and new circumstances.
Of course we like breaking away from routine once in awhile: trying new things, traveling, opening up to new experiences. That’s also part of the human package. But after a certain age in life, even when you’re off getting stoked on something new and different, there’s still that tremendous pull to come back to the familiar and the known, the routine and orderly everydayness of life as you’ve constructed it.
So with that paradox in mind let’s review some of the high and low lights as they flickered across Sonoma skies.
*****
A little song entitled: “I Got the Lowdown, Hometown, Downtown Hospital Blues”
Things were looking pretty bad for the Sonoma Hospital Show, it was losing points and its audience in the ratings due to chronic indecision, but it’s out of the ICU and stabilizing. The hospital honchos have made an incisive decision, and the In-Town site has been chosen for a replacement.
Now it is up to the hospital board and CEO to present a strong case to the voters why they have made the best decision, and why we the public must act intelligently and wisely (there’s a challenge), and spend the money and build a hospital. Let me offer this prescription. Impress upon the voters that ultimately it’s their own butts that are on the line. Something congenial like: “Hey folks, think heart attack; think blood pouring from a severed something or other; think stroke, where every second counts. Now think drag-assing to Santa Rosa or Napa at rush hour, reviewing your life as they say you do, while you slide into the big sleep.” Something encouraging and friendly like that. Fear is always a good motivator. Ask the Bush administration.
It’s almost beyond ironic that the final hospital plan – using some of the existing buildings, and buying the adjacent Caranalli property – is basically the same as the original one proposed by Marilyn Goode and Lou Benson two years ago, for which they gathered over 1000 signers on a petition to keep a new hospital in town. They and their supporters were ignored and denigrated by the then hospital board and CEO and their bevy of experts. Goode and Benson were bad-mouthed as know nothing, obstructionist, “little old ladies in tennis shoes.” And so it turns out they were right all along, and all the expert powers that were, with their grandiose plans of a 20+ acres medical complex, had their collective heads up their you-know-where.
*****
Crèche-mania and Other Tales of Woeful Countenance
Up there and vying with the hospital hi-jinks was Sonoma’s mini crusade…
THE RETURN OF THE CRECHE: The Second Coming
Just to recap, ">Episode One, introduced 17 years ago, ended with Joseph, Mary, Baby J, farm animals and wise men (must have gotten crowded in that barn) being driven from the Plaza by the godless hoards of the Secular Humanists. Now in…
Episode Two: CHRISTIAN MARTYRS STRIKE BACK
Temporarily set back in Episode One by turncoat clergy under the influence of liberal pagans, Defenders of the Crèche and their stalwart Knights of Columbus sought to restore the holy crèche to its rightful place in the Plaza del Sonoma.
STARRING
(Newcomer) August Sebastiani, whose outstanding performance has made its mark on Sonoma. And a cast of outstanding other characters who got to have their 3-minutes of say.
Alas, Episode II ends with a defeat for the forces of Everything Good and Holy. But all is not lost. Take heart, council-watchers, there will be an Episode III. The august August gave it away when he said, “You’ve not heard the last of this…” before someone cut off his mic.
*****
Exercising their most democratic and political right, one-third of those voting on a school bond measure judged it unwise to support our children’s educational needs, like library availability, because…that’s how connected these people are to their community. Basically for them it comes down to: “I’ve got mine, and I’m keeping mine, and you can go shove off.” Not too many of these folks will say that, but that’s how I read it, regardless of the fancy rationalizing you’ll hear to defend their penurious stance.
Granted maybe there are some folks who voted against supporting local education because they can’t afford the 28-cents a day it comes out to, – the bond measure asked for $91 a year – but I’ll bet that’s not the vast majority of naysayers. The majority of this one-third minority are people who do not feel connected to their community or its common welfare. They live in a place, but never become of it. They cannot see beyond their tightwadidness to appreciate the simple fact that educating our populace makes for a safer, saner and more aware and intelligent society. These miserly-addicted fail to see it’s in our own self-interest to support education.
Everyone knows that proper support for education in California has been drastically reduced as a consequence of Prop. 13. So it’s up to us, we the good ol’ people, to pony up the $91 /year the measure asked for. I confess I’ve not sent in my check as yet, but I hereby promise to.
*****
So there you have it, gentle blogaddicts, the year in Shonbrun time. Here’s to a good new year, and good riddance to the worst President and administration in U.S. history.
And so it goes…
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Rohnert Park Vote Leaves Impeachment Activists Dumbfounded
By Phil Burk, impeachbush.tv, and Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA
An unusually large group of citizens showed up at the Rohnert Park City Council meeting on a rainy Tuesday night to ask the City Council to pass a resolution urging Congress to Impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney. At the end of the meeting, those who attended were left scratching their heads and wondering what had happened.
A banner containing signatures of 400 citizens supporting the petition was displayed before the council. Somewhere around 20 people spoke. Once the session got underway, many who had initially not planned to speak ended up filling out cards to participate because they felt compelled to stand up and say something.
Speakers included members of the business community, historians, attorneys, students, activists, and ordinary citizens all demonstrating a clear knowledge of the impeachment process. Testimony was given describing the impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Several speakers pointed out that every elected official from Town Councils to the President takes an Oath of Office to protect and “defend the Constitution.” Abuse of powers as well as violations of laws and treaties as documented. Many explained how the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed are a local issue because the illegal war and occupation has negatively impacted the community.
At the end, a 20-year veteran said she had come just to listen but was moved by the other speakers. She said soldiers are not allowed to question their Commander in Chief, but she condemned Bush for what he had done—to the military and her fellow soldiers. She urged the council to vote for the resolution.
After the speakers were finished, the council members gave their response. IT WAS AS THOUGH THEY HAD HEARD NOTHING.
The first member explained he had studied the Constitution and could not vote for the resolution because the right to impeach was given to the House of Representatives, and not to city councils. The audience began to exchange puzzled looks at this point. The second member reiterated the opinion of the first and urged the crowd to become “more educated voters” because that was the best way to avoid situations such as this. The crowd gasped in amazement. “Do you think we voted for Bush?” one asked.
The remaining council members continued in the same vein. These are among the points they raised as to why they could not act on the resolution:
• Only Congress can initiate the impeachment process, a city council cannot •
• They can only act within the parameters of their office, and this falls outside of that scope •
• It is not their role or a function of their office to act on national issues * (And get this one, spoken by the Mayor herself) It is not in their oath of office to get involved in Constitutional matters. (Has she read the oath she took? “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ..”) •
• It falls outside their “jurisdiction” and they must avoid this, as it could result in legal problems •
• If they act on this, they could be violating the Constitution because it was outside their jurisdiction •
At this point, the crowd was apoplectic. Phil Burk raised his hand, insisting on addressing the legal issue that had been raised. He was invited to the podium and allowed two minutes. He explained the resolution was not asking the council to directly impeach Bush and Cheney. The resolution was a petition urging Congress to impeach. He explained it’s a standard practice, and the notion that Rohnert Park has no right to petition the federal government is legally incorrect. They looked stunned and didn’t get it. Phil cited references and laid it all out. They looked stunned and STILL didn’t get it. They seemed not to grasp the meaning of “jurisdiction” and why it did not apply here. They were not being asked to pass a law. They were being asked to petition Congress.
They refused to entertain further objections. At this point, the Council unanimously rejected the resolution on the grounds that the Constitution did not grant them the power to impeach.
It was astounding to those present. The disbelieving crowd noisily gathered in the lobby and tried to assess what had happened. “Did they simply misunderstand the resolution?” one asked. Some felt the council was simply unaware of its own rights. Others suspected the council was merely trying to hide its real reasons for not supporting the resolution. It was even more frustrating to those of us who had fought to get impeachment on the council’s agenda because prior to the hearing we had provided each member with a small packet of carefully selected materials covering all the points they seemed to be so painfully unaware of.
A number of us gathered in a nearby restaurant to attempt to sort out the details and determine what should be done next. We decided the rejection had to be challenged because it was based on a number of faulty premises. Perhaps a visit to the offices of the city officials (city manager, city legal counsel, etc.) would be in order. The citizens deserve to be heard by a council that understands what’s being asked and the nature of the process available to them. If they’re going to reject the citizens’ proposal, then it needs to be because they feel the acts of Bush and Cheney do not constitute a threat to our system of government—not on the faulty premise that the Constitution does not grant the council the right to impeach and that petitioning Congress is outside the council’s “jurisdiction.”
Editor's note: The Rohnert Park City Council's refusal to hear its citizen representatives and the voices of 400 petitioners comes as no surprise to this editor. At a meeting of Sonoma County progressive city council members, so-called progressive councilmen from Rohnert Park, Jake McKenzie and Tim Smith took a similar head-in-the-sand position when asked to lend support for an Out of Iraq Resolution presented to the Sonoma City Council. Mckenzie's behavior was particularly rude and obnoxious, indicative of his disdain for addressing issues outside what he and others on the RP Council consider outside the purview of their little bailiwick. This in total disregard of the hundreds of cities, large and small, across the nation that had passed resolutions urging withdrawal from Iraq within a year's time. This was in 2006. The short-sighted and imbecilic stance adopted by these stalwarts of the people's business, using the dodge that it's not a local issue, flies in the face of reality and just plain common sense. Just recently the Press Democrat ran an article showing the tax burden felt by all citizens of Sonoma County in paying for the war and occupation. Sonoma County hospitals are in deep financial trouble as are its schools and infrastructure. This is a direct result here and elsewhere of taking local and state taxes and pouring them down the deadly hole that has become Iraq occupation.
It is incomprehensible that county city councils are unable or unwilling to see the connections between local effects and national issues when it comes to matters like Iraq or impeachment of executive branch criminal activities. Hopefully county voters, progressive or otherwise, will remember such cowardly and dismissive behavior by recalcitrant politicians who blatantly refuse to listen to local voices. Some of these local pols have made a comfy career ensconced on councils at the people's expense, and it's high time to limit their terms.
Will Shonbrun
An unusually large group of citizens showed up at the Rohnert Park City Council meeting on a rainy Tuesday night to ask the City Council to pass a resolution urging Congress to Impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney. At the end of the meeting, those who attended were left scratching their heads and wondering what had happened.
A banner containing signatures of 400 citizens supporting the petition was displayed before the council. Somewhere around 20 people spoke. Once the session got underway, many who had initially not planned to speak ended up filling out cards to participate because they felt compelled to stand up and say something.
Speakers included members of the business community, historians, attorneys, students, activists, and ordinary citizens all demonstrating a clear knowledge of the impeachment process. Testimony was given describing the impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Several speakers pointed out that every elected official from Town Councils to the President takes an Oath of Office to protect and “defend the Constitution.” Abuse of powers as well as violations of laws and treaties as documented. Many explained how the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed are a local issue because the illegal war and occupation has negatively impacted the community.
At the end, a 20-year veteran said she had come just to listen but was moved by the other speakers. She said soldiers are not allowed to question their Commander in Chief, but she condemned Bush for what he had done—to the military and her fellow soldiers. She urged the council to vote for the resolution.
After the speakers were finished, the council members gave their response. IT WAS AS THOUGH THEY HAD HEARD NOTHING.
The first member explained he had studied the Constitution and could not vote for the resolution because the right to impeach was given to the House of Representatives, and not to city councils. The audience began to exchange puzzled looks at this point. The second member reiterated the opinion of the first and urged the crowd to become “more educated voters” because that was the best way to avoid situations such as this. The crowd gasped in amazement. “Do you think we voted for Bush?” one asked.
The remaining council members continued in the same vein. These are among the points they raised as to why they could not act on the resolution:
• Only Congress can initiate the impeachment process, a city council cannot •
• They can only act within the parameters of their office, and this falls outside of that scope •
• It is not their role or a function of their office to act on national issues * (And get this one, spoken by the Mayor herself) It is not in their oath of office to get involved in Constitutional matters. (Has she read the oath she took? “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ..”) •
• It falls outside their “jurisdiction” and they must avoid this, as it could result in legal problems •
• If they act on this, they could be violating the Constitution because it was outside their jurisdiction •
At this point, the crowd was apoplectic. Phil Burk raised his hand, insisting on addressing the legal issue that had been raised. He was invited to the podium and allowed two minutes. He explained the resolution was not asking the council to directly impeach Bush and Cheney. The resolution was a petition urging Congress to impeach. He explained it’s a standard practice, and the notion that Rohnert Park has no right to petition the federal government is legally incorrect. They looked stunned and didn’t get it. Phil cited references and laid it all out. They looked stunned and STILL didn’t get it. They seemed not to grasp the meaning of “jurisdiction” and why it did not apply here. They were not being asked to pass a law. They were being asked to petition Congress.
They refused to entertain further objections. At this point, the Council unanimously rejected the resolution on the grounds that the Constitution did not grant them the power to impeach.
It was astounding to those present. The disbelieving crowd noisily gathered in the lobby and tried to assess what had happened. “Did they simply misunderstand the resolution?” one asked. Some felt the council was simply unaware of its own rights. Others suspected the council was merely trying to hide its real reasons for not supporting the resolution. It was even more frustrating to those of us who had fought to get impeachment on the council’s agenda because prior to the hearing we had provided each member with a small packet of carefully selected materials covering all the points they seemed to be so painfully unaware of.
A number of us gathered in a nearby restaurant to attempt to sort out the details and determine what should be done next. We decided the rejection had to be challenged because it was based on a number of faulty premises. Perhaps a visit to the offices of the city officials (city manager, city legal counsel, etc.) would be in order. The citizens deserve to be heard by a council that understands what’s being asked and the nature of the process available to them. If they’re going to reject the citizens’ proposal, then it needs to be because they feel the acts of Bush and Cheney do not constitute a threat to our system of government—not on the faulty premise that the Constitution does not grant the council the right to impeach and that petitioning Congress is outside the council’s “jurisdiction.”
Editor's note: The Rohnert Park City Council's refusal to hear its citizen representatives and the voices of 400 petitioners comes as no surprise to this editor. At a meeting of Sonoma County progressive city council members, so-called progressive councilmen from Rohnert Park, Jake McKenzie and Tim Smith took a similar head-in-the-sand position when asked to lend support for an Out of Iraq Resolution presented to the Sonoma City Council. Mckenzie's behavior was particularly rude and obnoxious, indicative of his disdain for addressing issues outside what he and others on the RP Council consider outside the purview of their little bailiwick. This in total disregard of the hundreds of cities, large and small, across the nation that had passed resolutions urging withdrawal from Iraq within a year's time. This was in 2006. The short-sighted and imbecilic stance adopted by these stalwarts of the people's business, using the dodge that it's not a local issue, flies in the face of reality and just plain common sense. Just recently the Press Democrat ran an article showing the tax burden felt by all citizens of Sonoma County in paying for the war and occupation. Sonoma County hospitals are in deep financial trouble as are its schools and infrastructure. This is a direct result here and elsewhere of taking local and state taxes and pouring them down the deadly hole that has become Iraq occupation.
It is incomprehensible that county city councils are unable or unwilling to see the connections between local effects and national issues when it comes to matters like Iraq or impeachment of executive branch criminal activities. Hopefully county voters, progressive or otherwise, will remember such cowardly and dismissive behavior by recalcitrant politicians who blatantly refuse to listen to local voices. Some of these local pols have made a comfy career ensconced on councils at the people's expense, and it's high time to limit their terms.
Will Shonbrun
Monday, November 5, 2007
Medical Marijuana Madness
The villagers were out in force on a Wednesday evening on October 24 at a Riverside Drive commercial building complex just outside city limits, and though while not armed with pitchforks and torches were just about as riled up and fearful as the mobs in corny monster movies. The villagers in this case are the residents of the La Mancha housing complex, and they’re up at arms about a medical marijuana dispensary that may open its doors adjacent to their peaceful village to strictly qualified patients.
Many neighborhood opponents vehemently expressed their concerns to a panel of five proponents moderated, sometimes refereed, by Sonoma Index-Tribune editor David Bolling. As reported in that paper most of the neighbor’s questions and comments voiced legal, security and property value concerns. A consensus among the dispensary opponents seemed to be: We’re not against medical marijuana per se, but we don’t want it in proximity to our ‘hood. Right or wrong this is classic NIMBYism and no surprise.
The reality of this issue is this: Patients who need marijuana for medical purposes are not clustered in one town or area of the county, they’re all over the place. To suggest, as it was, having one Sonoma city or district as the designated medical marijuana dispensary area – Santa Rosa was the designated target – defies the logic of the situation. Would we place hospitals in only one area of the county?
The panel was able for the most part to answer factually and straightforwardly the questions and concerns directed their way. Myths and misunderstandings about dispensaries were fielded and answered by the panelists citing fact based data in response to opponents fears and concerns, which should have but often did not assuage the palpable negativity of many in the audience. It was clear after an hour and a half of offense and defense that many La Manchans came with minds made up, and they weren’t going to let facts and reason get in the way.
It was also abundantly clear to this observer that the medical marijuana dispensary folks weren’t going to win any hearts and minds among opponents, but is that necessary? Yes and no. If they adhere to the county’s stringent rules and regulations governing an enterprise of this nature then their business application should pass muster. But the kicker is that the Board of Supervisors gets to vote on this matter, and that hurdle is the wild card. The Sonoma Valley District Supervisor, Valerie Brown, commissioned this town hall meeting, and if I remember correctly asked Bolling to moderate, but oddly she did not attend. No doubt she got a report by staff, but still it begs the question - why was she absent in light of the public event being one she herself inculcated.
In light of full disclosure I fully support marijuana for medical purposes, and the establishment of dispensaries wherever they adhere to county regulations. I also fully support the use of marijuana in general and its being decriminalized and government regulated the same as the booze industry. Government has no business legislating the use of intoxicants other than regulating it regarding public safety concerns and legal business practices.
For factual information and data about medical marijuana and dispensaries here are some sources:
http://www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org / 510-251-1856
Organic Cannabis Foundation, Member Handbook – Rules & Regulations of the Dispensary, http://www.organicann.com / cannaorganic@yahoo.com
SAMM.net – Sonoma County Alliance for Medical marijuana
NORML.org
Common Sense for Drug Policy, 703-354-9050, info@csdp.org, http://www.csdp.org
Many neighborhood opponents vehemently expressed their concerns to a panel of five proponents moderated, sometimes refereed, by Sonoma Index-Tribune editor David Bolling. As reported in that paper most of the neighbor’s questions and comments voiced legal, security and property value concerns. A consensus among the dispensary opponents seemed to be: We’re not against medical marijuana per se, but we don’t want it in proximity to our ‘hood. Right or wrong this is classic NIMBYism and no surprise.
The reality of this issue is this: Patients who need marijuana for medical purposes are not clustered in one town or area of the county, they’re all over the place. To suggest, as it was, having one Sonoma city or district as the designated medical marijuana dispensary area – Santa Rosa was the designated target – defies the logic of the situation. Would we place hospitals in only one area of the county?
The panel was able for the most part to answer factually and straightforwardly the questions and concerns directed their way. Myths and misunderstandings about dispensaries were fielded and answered by the panelists citing fact based data in response to opponents fears and concerns, which should have but often did not assuage the palpable negativity of many in the audience. It was clear after an hour and a half of offense and defense that many La Manchans came with minds made up, and they weren’t going to let facts and reason get in the way.
It was also abundantly clear to this observer that the medical marijuana dispensary folks weren’t going to win any hearts and minds among opponents, but is that necessary? Yes and no. If they adhere to the county’s stringent rules and regulations governing an enterprise of this nature then their business application should pass muster. But the kicker is that the Board of Supervisors gets to vote on this matter, and that hurdle is the wild card. The Sonoma Valley District Supervisor, Valerie Brown, commissioned this town hall meeting, and if I remember correctly asked Bolling to moderate, but oddly she did not attend. No doubt she got a report by staff, but still it begs the question - why was she absent in light of the public event being one she herself inculcated.
In light of full disclosure I fully support marijuana for medical purposes, and the establishment of dispensaries wherever they adhere to county regulations. I also fully support the use of marijuana in general and its being decriminalized and government regulated the same as the booze industry. Government has no business legislating the use of intoxicants other than regulating it regarding public safety concerns and legal business practices.
For factual information and data about medical marijuana and dispensaries here are some sources:
http://www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org / 510-251-1856
Organic Cannabis Foundation, Member Handbook – Rules & Regulations of the Dispensary, http://www.organicann.com / cannaorganic@yahoo.com
SAMM.net – Sonoma County Alliance for Medical marijuana
NORML.org
Common Sense for Drug Policy, 703-354-9050, info@csdp.org, http://www.csdp.org
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sonoma County Rally to End Occupation
By Peter Phillips
Sonoma County stands up to end the Iraq occuppation and impeach the president
Hundreds of Santa Rosa activists rallied to end the Iraq occupation and demanded impeachment of the war criminals in the Whitehouse. The rally featured congresswomen Lynn Woolsey saying, “we need to bring our troops home now!” The rally was cheered on by radio hosts Evelina Molina, Miguel Molina and Dennis Bernstein from KPFA’s Flashpoints program.
Former Black Panther Elbert “Big Man” Howard called for ending the war and reminded the audience of the struggle of the Black Panther party in the 1960s. Norman Solomon spoke as a guest of the Progressive Democrats of America, documenting the corporate media’s continuing support for war.
Miles Everett with the Alliance for Democracy emphasized the importance of impeachment now to end the war and save lives in Iraq.
Davin Cardenas, outlined how US immigration policies are falsely linked to the war on terror and how torture is nothing new to the people of Latin America.
Elizabeth Stinson, encouraged people with relatives and friends thinking of joining the military or already in the service to visit the Peace and Justice Center for counseling on alternative programs to the military or how active duty personnel opposed to the war can leave with an honorable discharge.
Impeachment of Cheney and Bush was a common rally cry during the afternoon. The World Can’t Wait team built a mock jail and imprisoned George W. Bush. Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County circulated petitions for local city councils to pass impeachment resolutions and the Raging Grannies sang an impeachment song.
Music for the rally was provided by Gale Mead, Midnight Sun, Comanche High Power.
The event was sponsored by twenty-eight Sonoma county activists groups including, Progressive Democrats Sonoma County, Project Censored, Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, Casa Calpulli, Committee for Immigrants Rights, Department of Peace Campaign, Graton Day Labor, Healdsburg Peace Project, Healdsburg Progressive Club, Instituto Sanchez Mendoza, Peace Club of SSU, Petaluma Copwatch, Raging Grannies, Resolution to Impeach Coalition, Santa Rosa Democratic Club, Sonoma County Democracy for America, Sonoma County Free Press, SSU Black Student Union, Students for Justice in Palestine, Students for Media Democracy, Unitarian Universalists Petaluma, Veterans For Peace, Vietnam Vets Against the War, Wearenotbuyingit.org, World Can’t Wait.
Sonoma County stands up to end the Iraq occuppation and impeach the president
Hundreds of Santa Rosa activists rallied to end the Iraq occupation and demanded impeachment of the war criminals in the Whitehouse. The rally featured congresswomen Lynn Woolsey saying, “we need to bring our troops home now!” The rally was cheered on by radio hosts Evelina Molina, Miguel Molina and Dennis Bernstein from KPFA’s Flashpoints program.
Former Black Panther Elbert “Big Man” Howard called for ending the war and reminded the audience of the struggle of the Black Panther party in the 1960s. Norman Solomon spoke as a guest of the Progressive Democrats of America, documenting the corporate media’s continuing support for war.
Miles Everett with the Alliance for Democracy emphasized the importance of impeachment now to end the war and save lives in Iraq.
Davin Cardenas, outlined how US immigration policies are falsely linked to the war on terror and how torture is nothing new to the people of Latin America.
Elizabeth Stinson, encouraged people with relatives and friends thinking of joining the military or already in the service to visit the Peace and Justice Center for counseling on alternative programs to the military or how active duty personnel opposed to the war can leave with an honorable discharge.
Impeachment of Cheney and Bush was a common rally cry during the afternoon. The World Can’t Wait team built a mock jail and imprisoned George W. Bush. Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County circulated petitions for local city councils to pass impeachment resolutions and the Raging Grannies sang an impeachment song.
Music for the rally was provided by Gale Mead, Midnight Sun, Comanche High Power.
The event was sponsored by twenty-eight Sonoma county activists groups including, Progressive Democrats Sonoma County, Project Censored, Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, Casa Calpulli, Committee for Immigrants Rights, Department of Peace Campaign, Graton Day Labor, Healdsburg Peace Project, Healdsburg Progressive Club, Instituto Sanchez Mendoza, Peace Club of SSU, Petaluma Copwatch, Raging Grannies, Resolution to Impeach Coalition, Santa Rosa Democratic Club, Sonoma County Democracy for America, Sonoma County Free Press, SSU Black Student Union, Students for Justice in Palestine, Students for Media Democracy, Unitarian Universalists Petaluma, Veterans For Peace, Vietnam Vets Against the War, Wearenotbuyingit.org, World Can’t Wait.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Who ARE We?
By Will Shonbrun
This most fundamental question, inflected with utter frustration and plaintive inquiry by Michael Moore in his movie “Sicko,” hits like a blow to the solar plexus. It emerges from Moore in a brutal, desperate moment as he explores the pay-to-play condition of health care in the U.S. today. It begs a further question: Why does a nation, a culture that prides itself on family values and moral rectitude not care about one-sixth of its population without health insurance and therefore almost bereft of health care? Eight and a half million of those approximately 50 million without health insurance are children, presumably members of families. Add to that an estimated 50 million more that are underinsured and subject to bankruptcy if a costly medical condition arises, and that’s fully one-third of our population. Consider as well that there are hundreds of thousands more who are covered only insofar as their employment has picked it up, a tenuous condition to be sure, and it’s easy to understand why nobody likes this state of affairs except insurance companies and all those ancillary businesses that feed off them like so many parasites. And of course Congress isn’t really bothered by this because those folks have about the best health insurance coverage and benefits, as it’s possible to receive.
So when Moore encounters the desperate plights of his subjects in the film, at the mercy of an uncaring health care system, keeping in mind that these are representative of tens of millions of our countrymen/women, it’s little wonder that the question, the challenge, the wail that emerges is “who are we?” It stayed with me when I left the theater.
Critics of the film say that Moore has set up the scenes in order to make his points. Yes, well of course the sequences showing the viewer the hopeless frustration, anger and fear these chosen subjects experience trying to get medical help for themselves or loved ones are contrived, staged to a certain degree. It’s a film – it’s not shot in real time! But that doesn’t mean it’s not real, that their pain and suffering isn’t genuine. The people are real, their medical problems are real and their inability to get the health care they need because the strictly for profit system doesn’t really give a damn about them is all too real. Moore’s film chronicles these realities.
The other main avenue of criticism was that the film is way one-sided, and its targets weren’t given a chance to tell their side of the story. Please. To complain that health insurance companies and big pharma have been underrepresented in the public arena is foolish beyond words. Such misguided criticism dissolves when confronted by the relentless bombardment of advertising and PR done by the companies who are the system, and want to keep it that way. Their worst nightmare is a universal, single-payer, government administrated health care system, like those in England, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada et al. The voices of the health care industry are heard every day on TV, radio and in print. One peep from the other side through the voice of Mr. Moore and the industry screams “foul, unfair, unbalanced.” What a load of crap.
So the question “who are we?” and its unspoken implication, “what kind of people are we?” hangs in the air, unanswered. And it goes even further and deeper than our broken down, exclusive and dehumanized health care system.
Who we are: Conned by the neo-cons, or we did get fooled again
We’re a nation that waged a pre-emptive war of aggression against a country that did not attack us, and as the information has come to light had neither the means nor the inclination to do so. Our elected representatives in government, ostensibly chosen because they have leadership ability, let themselves be manipulated and fooled, lied to and propagandized by a president and his administration bent on this disastrous escapade. They did not explore and examine the truth of the claims that were made – they followed blindly like a spooked herd and displayed neither reason, skepticism or the use of considered judgment for which they were voted into office. They were fed outright lies and half-truths; they were conned by a slick coterie of propagandists who wanted to invade Iraq, and knew how to play upon the hysteria and politics of terrorism; they failed miserably to show a scintilla of sagacity and question the fantasy of a mad adventure. There were a few exceptions, but the Congress almost overwhelmingly bought the concocted story of mushroom clouds, an Iraqi connection to 9/11 and al Qaeda, and all the rest of the unmitigated crap dished up by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell, and cheer led by George W. Bush, a man of almost no sound judgment whatsoever. A man blind to actions and consequences, and somehow unaffected by the monumental misery and suffering he has wrought. A man so disconnected from reality he can barely ad lib an intelligent sentence.
The war and occupation was brought to us by neo-conservative politicians, cabinet and staff appointees, and pundits and media acolytes insisting on U.S. hegemony employing pre-emptive wars, and selling bogus scenarios as reasons for doing so. As if that alone wasn’t bad enough, when it came to carrying out their plans for world dominance – see “Project for a New American Century” – they fucked up so mightily and so completely in every possible way it makes one wonder why anything that comes out of their mouths should be believed for one second. Yet their pronouncements are still considered and even given some credence by the media and the public.
Governments lie. Let me repeat that, GOVERNMENTS LIE; they always have, and most probably always will. Governments are people, and people lie for an abundance of reasons. That doesn’t mean government is evil or unnecessary; it means government (our fellow countrymen/women) must be watched for truthfulness and consistency in words and actions. That’s the job of the citizen in a democracy, and if we don’t stay on top of it we’re going to be manipulated and screwed upside down and backward. Whether it’s human nature or not I don’t know, but it’s reality. Follow the self-interest and you’ll get to the motive. We should know this. The U.S. citizen’s political reality handbook should be part of every school curricula. But alas, the education system has no interest in this kind of learning; it’s more concerned with testing, and tenure and retiring young enough to enjoy it. Who can blame them? Self-interest drives us all. Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.” I say don’t trust anything or anyone until you’ve found out for yourself what the truth is. I thought we’d learned this lesson long ago, but I was wrong.
We will be fooled again
We have become easy prey; primed and pumped by biased media pundits and partisan newspapers, TV news shows, and radio loudmouths selling fear, hate and their own twisted ideologies. We have let the public airwaves become the private property of mega corporations because we did not stand up and say, “No, this communication highway is publicly owned, and you can only rent its use.” Broadcast contracts are hardly if ever rescinded; they have become like corporations – immortal. And now it’s too late to reclaim our public rights because those we put in charge to protect the public’s interest sold out to the media corporations, which employ armies of lawyers to protect their interests. News has fused with entertainment, and become propaganda espousing political points of view, not credible and balanced reporting.
Administrations lead us into wars, and there is no longer a viable Fourth Estate to probe, and question, and doubt, and work to find out what is true and what isn’t. The press and their TV counterparts have become the lackeys of the corporations, which in unity with government and the military dictate the politics and social structures almost all are subject to. We no longer have a free and independent press to act as a firewall between those who sell us some bill of goods. By and large we have become a nation of dupes, dramatically evident by a Congress that so easily succumbed to the lies and false information propagated by a war mongering president and his minions. If these elected representatives are supposed to be the best and the brightest among us, what does that say about us?
Because we have let ourselves, through disinterest, or distraction, or confusion or some other reason become dupes, marks, easily manipulated by those with self-serving agendas, and because we relinquished the charge to be ever vigilant if we were to maintain our democracy, we the people are no longer a force in controlling the overreaching and intrusion of government. ‘Overreaching’ in terms of foreign policy and insinuating U.S. interests into foreign affairs, and ‘intrusion’ into the private, personal activities of its citizens. What Ike once called the “military-industrial complex” is now more akin to a military-industrial-political-corporate complex that has embedded itself in just about every facet of public life. Even the Judiciary, one of the legs of the check-and-balance triad, has become hopelessly political and partisan, and therefore ideological rather than impartial.
“Nothing to fear, but fear itself” ain’t nothing
We have become so easily manipulated by fear that we have willingly sacrificed the very Constitutional rights and liberties revolutionary Americans gave their lives for. We have stood by while our government abandoned the centuries old foundational legal principle – habeas corpus – which protects all human beings accused of crimes to know the charge, and have access to courts and trials. We have succumbed to fear to such a degree that we accept the use of torture in interrogations. Torture! Anathema to almost every nation on earth. We have even accepted the kidnapping of suspects for the express purpose of torture in secret prisons in undisclosed foreign nations.
I say ‘we accepted’ because it is we who elect our governments, and these representatives in turn control the direction and interests of the country. Where have these elected representatives been while Constitutional rights have been systematically eroded? More so, aren’t most of those in that illustrious group called Congress the very ones who brought us to where we are as a country; a nation disdained by most of the world? Maybe we can say we didn’t know the truth about the lead-up to war, or what really goes on in Washington because our news and information sources aren’t reliable, or even straight with us. I don’t think it’s a valid excuse, but I can see some merit in the argument. But when the truth about some of these things we’ve been told comes to light, and our representatives in government are still not acting to enforce change, then we, the public, are responsible for the condition of things. And the question, “Who are we?” is even more valid.
So who are we?
It’s a cultural question so vast and so deep it will take (and there have been) myriad books and other publications, Net sites, films, TV and radio programs, and countless discussions and forums to fathom it all – in time. But we can look at some of the outward manifestations of our culture and reach certain conclusions. We can examine the tableaux of our own lives, and judge how we are spending our time on Earth. Most of the world doesn’t have that luxury; they’re just trying to stay alive, and avoid undue suffering. That’s true for some in our country, but not for many. We can look at the primary institutions in our country – government and electoral politics, the public education system, environmental protection agencies, business, labor and wages, and health care – and see if we think they’re working. Is the vast majority of our populace benefiting from these civic constructs, and are their prospects improving, or are significant changes within these systems required for that outcome? Are the systems we have devised to direct our lives toward the “pursuit of happiness” aiding and abetting that process, or not?
Seems to me that’s a question all who live in a democracy need to ask.
In wrestling with the question, “Who are we?” I was struck with the realization that the driving force motivating our young (and not so young) solders to go to war was the feeling of comradeship and brotherhood engendered under those extreme conditions. Time and again when interviewed these soldiers, even those who sustained wounds, expressed “love” and fealty toward their unit. Yes, patriotism and sense of duty were strong factors, but they were not the first things expressed when soldiers were asked why they were reenlisting. “I couldn’t leave my buddies behind,” they said in one way or another. Stronger than the fear of bodily injury or even death was the need for camaraderie, brotherhood and love for one’s fellow being.
So my question is: Does it take a war, a life or death situation, for us Americans to feel that way about one another? Are we capable of experiencing these strong feelings for one another only in the most extreme of circumstances? Are the feelings of comradeship, empathy and a shared deep appreciation of one another not attainable in other ways? I don’t believe that, and I know it is not true. But it seems that so many of our countrymen/women don’t, and it makes me wonder all the more – who are we?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
BackStage w/ Mikey - 2007 Sonoma Vintage Festival
By Michael J. Kelley
What’s good for your soul, and your spirit,
and your ability to build community,
well, there’s only Live Music:
T’ain’t Nothin’ Else Like It!
Even though this year’s Vintage Festival concluded its many merriments by Sunday night ...alright, truth be known ...there are known revelers who passed into Monday and October with their sustained enthusiasm for the 110th celebration of The Harvest and all that’s good about Sonoma; at least that’s how I tend to see it, and I should know: I was there for the whole thing!! Here it is, just two [short] days later, when I have regained my footing at home and equilibrium afoot, I will savor the activities of this weekend last for the whole of the interim year until we get to do it again [111th here we come!]!
Such splendid examples of celebration, fond remembrances, savory ...indeed, thoroughly tasty ...delicacies to delight the every sense could only be presented in such fine ...dare I say ...Sonoma fashion with the participation and support of hundreds, nigh, thousands, for each had a place and a part to play. Partyologists of this brand include organizers, artists, entrepreneurs, historians, hams, accountants, manufacturers, middlemen, ministers and minstrels, culinary magicians, vintners, volunteers [!], farmers, farmworkers and folks; and what a wide selection of folks there were too! From Boy Scouts to Boob Awareness, from Educators trying to augment their programs by selling snacks [...sigh ...I’ll have another cotton candy [burp!]], to Firemen ...and Firewomen ...tapping the brew for a few bucks to run their ever-challenging emergency protection services, and service organizations, and non-profits, and kids, old folks, big folks and small, even folks who weren’t folks at all: Horses, and animals and tractors and pageantry aidst sirens and music, music, music! The Sonoma High School Marching Band [Go Dragons!], the [dreaded ...alright ...always happy to see them [go]] Bagpipers Marching Band, the acapella flight of favorite son Diego Garcia with blessings for the grape in song and community in advance of the second-longest running parade in California [next to only the Rose Parade in Pasadena]. Grape Stomping contests, Wine Serving Obstacle Courses, rock walls to climb, potatoes to toss, art and poetry and thought, and information ...and sharing ...beautiful food [some dangerous food too ...alright ...who doesn’t like a corn dog every now and then!], bountiful blessings and every expression of gratitude and glee could be seen on the thousands of faces there in the home of the [now, 161 year old] Independent Republic of California. Some were relieved that the [grape] crush was on, or nearly over; while others were all too happy to be recipients of the very finest offerings of this here Green Earth!
The wine [!], and the song! Oh my God [in both cases; multiple cases of each [quite actually!]]!
Winemakers and their wineries, crooners and their bands; glasses, guitars, titillating tastes of vino and vocalists paired so well with the potpourri of musical pleasures that rang out from the two stages. I can’t say first-hand about the front stage, but I can only imagine the captivating sounds of local hero Rich Little ...among many others [including Latin favorites Bautista, David Correa and Cascada, Los Califas, and the Peones del Norte, Wayward Sway [I got a thing for the violin player [!], and the fabulous David Thom Band; see The Sonoma Valley Music Scene in the weekly Sun for details] ...self-accompanied with only his voice and the caress of his ethereal Chapman Stick blending perfectly with the day’s meanderings amidst the
warm glow of a sun turning to autumn.
On the back stage however, I can speak with unabashed authority for there wasn’t a moment of it that did not pass through my sensory awareness [the joy of being on the Stage Crew [especially when pouring Mr. Little’s very own ...and tasty! ...“Band Blend Red”!]; as Emcee [I love that spelling!], beyond joy was my opportunity to meet, and to get to know, and work with, band after world-class band, headliners [Tommy Castro [the Hardest-Workin’ Band in show business holds the record for playing 500- something consecutive gigs, in a row [that’s almost two years straight!], showed us all what really dynamic blues is all about, Roy Rogers [all I can say is Holy Cow [the Maestro of the modern slide guitar can be found with The Delta Rhythm Kings at roy-rogers.com]!], local heroes [The Hellhounds [truly and deeply in their element!], the favorite sons known as The Whiskey Theives [those boys DO know how to rock!], The P.O.T. [only Hall-of-Famer Tommy Thomson could pull together such an awesome Power Organ Trio [and have a follow-up gig that night over at Little Switzerland! [way to go Tom!]]!], The Smokin’ Jaze [with Front-men Joe Herrschaft and Danny T’Bone rattlin’ us to our roots!] even Jamie Clark and The Players stopped whining long enough to belt out a really cool set], virtuosos every one; some were just flat out rockers! Stunning singers, out of this universe guitar and harmonica riffs, unbelievably motivating drummers and rhythm sections, there was simply no way to be within earshot of the occasion without wanting to tap your toe: Dancing ran
rampant, thanks in very large toasts ...I believe he prefers Pinot ...to the VintageFest Boardsman, Music Coordinator, Stage Manager [x 2!], IT Hero, DJ, Columnist, Force Majeure and Rock-Star unto himself [last seen playing a charitable fund-raising party of course!], Mr. James Marshall Berry [aka Capt. Ide of
“The Bear Flag Revolt Re-enactment” and The Anchorman for the ...Bear Flag ...”Revolt” rock ‘n roll band!]. Dashing only begins to describe Mr. Berry’s presence throughout the whole of the weekend’s events, with the fruits of his many preparations simply drenching the audience who came and went, and came back and sat and sipped, then stood, had to dance, and otherwise found the stage behind Sonoma City Hall just the perfect scale for the scope and impact of the music performed there. Loaded with stars both known and not, two days and seven acts took us on a roller-coaster of a ride that appropriately wafted towards the Pioneer Cemetery northward from The Plaza; I believe our ancestors would approve! [Did I mention that all of this music was Free [and I’d have many kind feelings for the splendid Richard Olsen Orches-tra, save my inability to attend the Patron’s Nite Gala]?]
When JM and I assured ourselves that all was finito that Sunday night, astride my homeward-bound motor-cycle, I found BR Cohn standing in the street in front of The Swiss Hotel; I got to chide him for scheduling his big music bash over the same weekend, because of course, one can’t do both, and, up until now, Bruce has
braved the peril of the weather pretty well [though they got some wet butts out there last year, so we know why he upped the calendar]. Besides, there were a couple of thousand people at The Plaza anyway, all dancin’ and drinkin’ and eatin’ and paradin’, and havin’ a fine-old time! Maybe that’s enough; maybe that’s just perfect,
though ...somehow ...part of me would like to see everybody from every part of this valley show up at the same event, and if any event can do it, this one’s got the appeal, diversity, history, and growth potential to provide a fun, egalitarian forum found nowhere else: This year’s Festival certainly had something for everybody, as it
remembered a little more of itself, and where it’s come from; it tried some new things quite deliciously, and ultimately forwarded an inclusive, creative tone that now resonates outward from the Center of the Universe as the model for the 111th.
Michael Kelley can be contacted at: bydsine@vom.com
What’s good for your soul, and your spirit,
and your ability to build community,
well, there’s only Live Music:
T’ain’t Nothin’ Else Like It!
Even though this year’s Vintage Festival concluded its many merriments by Sunday night ...alright, truth be known ...there are known revelers who passed into Monday and October with their sustained enthusiasm for the 110th celebration of The Harvest and all that’s good about Sonoma; at least that’s how I tend to see it, and I should know: I was there for the whole thing!! Here it is, just two [short] days later, when I have regained my footing at home and equilibrium afoot, I will savor the activities of this weekend last for the whole of the interim year until we get to do it again [111th here we come!]!
Such splendid examples of celebration, fond remembrances, savory ...indeed, thoroughly tasty ...delicacies to delight the every sense could only be presented in such fine ...dare I say ...Sonoma fashion with the participation and support of hundreds, nigh, thousands, for each had a place and a part to play. Partyologists of this brand include organizers, artists, entrepreneurs, historians, hams, accountants, manufacturers, middlemen, ministers and minstrels, culinary magicians, vintners, volunteers [!], farmers, farmworkers and folks; and what a wide selection of folks there were too! From Boy Scouts to Boob Awareness, from Educators trying to augment their programs by selling snacks [...sigh ...I’ll have another cotton candy [burp!]], to Firemen ...and Firewomen ...tapping the brew for a few bucks to run their ever-challenging emergency protection services, and service organizations, and non-profits, and kids, old folks, big folks and small, even folks who weren’t folks at all: Horses, and animals and tractors and pageantry aidst sirens and music, music, music! The Sonoma High School Marching Band [Go Dragons!], the [dreaded ...alright ...always happy to see them [go]] Bagpipers Marching Band, the acapella flight of favorite son Diego Garcia with blessings for the grape in song and community in advance of the second-longest running parade in California [next to only the Rose Parade in Pasadena]. Grape Stomping contests, Wine Serving Obstacle Courses, rock walls to climb, potatoes to toss, art and poetry and thought, and information ...and sharing ...beautiful food [some dangerous food too ...alright ...who doesn’t like a corn dog every now and then!], bountiful blessings and every expression of gratitude and glee could be seen on the thousands of faces there in the home of the [now, 161 year old] Independent Republic of California. Some were relieved that the [grape] crush was on, or nearly over; while others were all too happy to be recipients of the very finest offerings of this here Green Earth!
The wine [!], and the song! Oh my God [in both cases; multiple cases of each [quite actually!]]!
Winemakers and their wineries, crooners and their bands; glasses, guitars, titillating tastes of vino and vocalists paired so well with the potpourri of musical pleasures that rang out from the two stages. I can’t say first-hand about the front stage, but I can only imagine the captivating sounds of local hero Rich Little ...among many others [including Latin favorites Bautista, David Correa and Cascada, Los Califas, and the Peones del Norte, Wayward Sway [I got a thing for the violin player [!], and the fabulous David Thom Band; see The Sonoma Valley Music Scene in the weekly Sun for details] ...self-accompanied with only his voice and the caress of his ethereal Chapman Stick blending perfectly with the day’s meanderings amidst the
warm glow of a sun turning to autumn.
On the back stage however, I can speak with unabashed authority for there wasn’t a moment of it that did not pass through my sensory awareness [the joy of being on the Stage Crew [especially when pouring Mr. Little’s very own ...and tasty! ...“Band Blend Red”!]; as Emcee [I love that spelling!], beyond joy was my opportunity to meet, and to get to know, and work with, band after world-class band, headliners [Tommy Castro [the Hardest-Workin’ Band in show business holds the record for playing 500- something consecutive gigs, in a row [that’s almost two years straight!], showed us all what really dynamic blues is all about, Roy Rogers [all I can say is Holy Cow [the Maestro of the modern slide guitar can be found with The Delta Rhythm Kings at roy-rogers.com]!], local heroes [The Hellhounds [truly and deeply in their element!], the favorite sons known as The Whiskey Theives [those boys DO know how to rock!], The P.O.T. [only Hall-of-Famer Tommy Thomson could pull together such an awesome Power Organ Trio [and have a follow-up gig that night over at Little Switzerland! [way to go Tom!]]!], The Smokin’ Jaze [with Front-men Joe Herrschaft and Danny T’Bone rattlin’ us to our roots!] even Jamie Clark and The Players stopped whining long enough to belt out a really cool set], virtuosos every one; some were just flat out rockers! Stunning singers, out of this universe guitar and harmonica riffs, unbelievably motivating drummers and rhythm sections, there was simply no way to be within earshot of the occasion without wanting to tap your toe: Dancing ran
rampant, thanks in very large toasts ...I believe he prefers Pinot ...to the VintageFest Boardsman, Music Coordinator, Stage Manager [x 2!], IT Hero, DJ, Columnist, Force Majeure and Rock-Star unto himself [last seen playing a charitable fund-raising party of course!], Mr. James Marshall Berry [aka Capt. Ide of
“The Bear Flag Revolt Re-enactment” and The Anchorman for the ...Bear Flag ...”Revolt” rock ‘n roll band!]. Dashing only begins to describe Mr. Berry’s presence throughout the whole of the weekend’s events, with the fruits of his many preparations simply drenching the audience who came and went, and came back and sat and sipped, then stood, had to dance, and otherwise found the stage behind Sonoma City Hall just the perfect scale for the scope and impact of the music performed there. Loaded with stars both known and not, two days and seven acts took us on a roller-coaster of a ride that appropriately wafted towards the Pioneer Cemetery northward from The Plaza; I believe our ancestors would approve! [Did I mention that all of this music was Free [and I’d have many kind feelings for the splendid Richard Olsen Orches-tra, save my inability to attend the Patron’s Nite Gala]?]
When JM and I assured ourselves that all was finito that Sunday night, astride my homeward-bound motor-cycle, I found BR Cohn standing in the street in front of The Swiss Hotel; I got to chide him for scheduling his big music bash over the same weekend, because of course, one can’t do both, and, up until now, Bruce has
braved the peril of the weather pretty well [though they got some wet butts out there last year, so we know why he upped the calendar]. Besides, there were a couple of thousand people at The Plaza anyway, all dancin’ and drinkin’ and eatin’ and paradin’, and havin’ a fine-old time! Maybe that’s enough; maybe that’s just perfect,
though ...somehow ...part of me would like to see everybody from every part of this valley show up at the same event, and if any event can do it, this one’s got the appeal, diversity, history, and growth potential to provide a fun, egalitarian forum found nowhere else: This year’s Festival certainly had something for everybody, as it
remembered a little more of itself, and where it’s come from; it tried some new things quite deliciously, and ultimately forwarded an inclusive, creative tone that now resonates outward from the Center of the Universe as the model for the 111th.
Michael Kelley can be contacted at: bydsine@vom.com
Friday, September 28, 2007
Sun's Coverage of Creche Issue Sloppy and Misleading
The Sun newspaper's story purportedly covering the crèche issue was as imbalanced a report as its editorial was superficial.
The story devoted two paragraphs to Councilman Sebastiani’s arguments, and a full paragraph in agreement with it by a spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus. Exactly one sentence in opposition to the proposal from retired minister David McCracken was quoted, and acknowledgement of the “no” vote cast by Mayor Cohen.
At the council meeting about a dozen people spoke against Sebastiani’s proposal to bring back the crèche, and to open up the Plaza for religious displays. All religions that is – presumably on their major holidays as well. A broad range of objections were voiced at the meeting ranging from the First Amendment’s establishing of what later became known as the separation of church and state, to the unclear meaning and implementation of “content-neutral” used in the proposal, to the many policy implementation questions that were brought up. None of this showed up in the reporter’s story.
The nativity scene editorial praised the council for its “open-mindedness” in deliberating Sebastiani’s proposal, and admired a point brought up maintaining that the crèche is “public art,” and therefore is okay on government property. If a plastic mold representing the manger scene is “art,” then what is the Pieta?
Proponent of having religious displays (for 28 days), Councilman Ken Brown, gets to put his message in the editorial, but not one word of counter argument from the many who spoke in opposition. The editorial makes the claim that “… the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in order to protect religion from government not the other way around.” Is that so? No reference is cited to back this claim.
Even though the intent of the very first sentence of the Constitution regarding religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been debated down through the ages, given its historical context, and other writings of Madison and Jefferson, the principal framers of the document, it clearly indicates that there should be no endorsing of religion, or prohibition against any religion on the part of the government. In fact it was so important to establish this fundamental caveat that it was purposely given top billing. The founding fathers sought to create a government based on rational justification for its policies, not theocratic doctrines, biblical or otherwise. “Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of government.” Those are the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment.
Then there are administrative policy implementation questions that were never addressed by the council or staff. For example: What will be the nature of the display, i.e., statues or symbols only, or words too? If words are allowed, what words will be allowed or not, and why? Any limitation on size or lighting? If there’s vandalism who bears the cost? Will insurance be required and if so, what type and in what amount? How much will additional use impact Plaza grounds? And suppose a generally disdained radical religious group wants a spot on the Plaza. If such decisions have to be content-neutral, is that okay?
Mr. Sebastiani says that he wants to change the city policy in order to promote freedom of religious expression, and that the current policy stifles that. That’s hard to accept considering that religious speech occurs in myriad religious venues in our country practically every day of the year. Free religious speech is practiced in abundance on radio and TV, and in countless newspapers, books and magazines. There has never been any attempt in this or any other town to bridle or restrict free expression of religion. But it is a completely different matter than having an overtly religious display on city property in front of City Hall for 28 days. That strongly suggests endorsement of religion by government, and in my estimation puts us on the slipperiest of slopes.
The story devoted two paragraphs to Councilman Sebastiani’s arguments, and a full paragraph in agreement with it by a spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus. Exactly one sentence in opposition to the proposal from retired minister David McCracken was quoted, and acknowledgement of the “no” vote cast by Mayor Cohen.
At the council meeting about a dozen people spoke against Sebastiani’s proposal to bring back the crèche, and to open up the Plaza for religious displays. All religions that is – presumably on their major holidays as well. A broad range of objections were voiced at the meeting ranging from the First Amendment’s establishing of what later became known as the separation of church and state, to the unclear meaning and implementation of “content-neutral” used in the proposal, to the many policy implementation questions that were brought up. None of this showed up in the reporter’s story.
The nativity scene editorial praised the council for its “open-mindedness” in deliberating Sebastiani’s proposal, and admired a point brought up maintaining that the crèche is “public art,” and therefore is okay on government property. If a plastic mold representing the manger scene is “art,” then what is the Pieta?
Proponent of having religious displays (for 28 days), Councilman Ken Brown, gets to put his message in the editorial, but not one word of counter argument from the many who spoke in opposition. The editorial makes the claim that “… the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in order to protect religion from government not the other way around.” Is that so? No reference is cited to back this claim.
Even though the intent of the very first sentence of the Constitution regarding religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been debated down through the ages, given its historical context, and other writings of Madison and Jefferson, the principal framers of the document, it clearly indicates that there should be no endorsing of religion, or prohibition against any religion on the part of the government. In fact it was so important to establish this fundamental caveat that it was purposely given top billing. The founding fathers sought to create a government based on rational justification for its policies, not theocratic doctrines, biblical or otherwise. “Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of government.” Those are the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment.
Then there are administrative policy implementation questions that were never addressed by the council or staff. For example: What will be the nature of the display, i.e., statues or symbols only, or words too? If words are allowed, what words will be allowed or not, and why? Any limitation on size or lighting? If there’s vandalism who bears the cost? Will insurance be required and if so, what type and in what amount? How much will additional use impact Plaza grounds? And suppose a generally disdained radical religious group wants a spot on the Plaza. If such decisions have to be content-neutral, is that okay?
Mr. Sebastiani says that he wants to change the city policy in order to promote freedom of religious expression, and that the current policy stifles that. That’s hard to accept considering that religious speech occurs in myriad religious venues in our country practically every day of the year. Free religious speech is practiced in abundance on radio and TV, and in countless newspapers, books and magazines. There has never been any attempt in this or any other town to bridle or restrict free expression of religion. But it is a completely different matter than having an overtly religious display on city property in front of City Hall for 28 days. That strongly suggests endorsement of religion by government, and in my estimation puts us on the slipperiest of slopes.
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Creche War- Take Two
On Wednesday the city council will take up again the question of whether to have a nativity scene in the Plaza at Christmas. For years this was a common occurrence until around 1990 when questions came up regarding the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution directing that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", and a vigorous and at times vitriolic debate consumed many in the Sonoma community. The opinions and positions grew so divisive that leaders in the religious community advised having the creche or other iconography relegated to church grounds, and leave the Plaza - local government property - unadorned of any religious symbols. It's commonly agreed that Xmas trees, Santa Claus, plastic reindeer and the like do not solely promote a religious message, and are more in keeping with traditional holiday symbols. In fact a result of the bitter divide among our populace was an establishment of a Plaza Display Policies regulating Plaza use for religious and other purposes.
Councilman Sebastiani has decided he wants to revisit the Plaza Use Policies regarding the holiday display policy, and he'll present his thoughts on the matter at the upcoming city council meeting on the 19th at the Vet's. Building. Early in his nascent career in local politics, Mr. Sebastiani expressed a fervent wish to reinstate the nativity scene on the Plaza at Xmas time, drudging up past feelings that wracked the community 17 years ago, and will probably reoccur this go around. Oddly, Sebastiani, who has steadfastly refused to consider national issues such as the Iraq war or immigration reform despite their having substantial and demonstrable local effects and impacts, is all too willing to take on a Constitutional issue that has been debated practically since its inception. How he has managed in his mind to tease this 1st Amendment directive, which is clearly an overarching issue of national scope, is a puzzle that the councilman will have to unravel for our edification at the meeting.
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First let’s begin with a little history lesson.
The birth of this nation ushered in a fundamental shift as to the purpose and the structure of government. It saw the end of monarchy and the flowering of democracy – a profound and radical departure. Under governance by monarchy or totalitarian dictate the people served the government. In a democracy the people were the government – elected and interchangeable by popular vote. The government became that which served the public interest.
The people who crafted the Constitution that would establish this new and ground-breaking form of government were well aware of the pitfalls of policy set by decree at the whim or pleasure of a single individual – a king or potentate – or policy set by powerful institutions such as the military or predominant religious groups to serve their particular interests. Therefore they constructed a document of laws that focused on individual freedoms, individual human rights, a press free to go wherever it wanted, and no religious restrictions or adoption of any religious belief by the government. They knew this was a key element in forming a union between disparate factions with differing objectives. They knew that church and state must stay separate for the sake of building a coherent though diverse populace, which is what they were then, and what we are now. And it’s a good thing.
A nativity scene crèche honoring the birth of Jesus Christ is Christian iconography of the highest order. It celebrates one religion – one religious point of view among many others. If a particular religion can place its bedrock theological symbol on property owned by our government, and therefore owned in common by the public, it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. In the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment, "Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of Government." From time to time religious groups have tried end-runs around the First Amendment's attempt to keep church and state separate by incorporating other religions symbols in conjunction with Christian ones on government property, in essence saying, "see, this isn't government holding one religion over any other, so it's not really unconstitutional." Nevertheless this is still an attempt to water down the very first directive of the Bill of Rights, wisely telling us to keep government and religion separate; for an intermingling of the two profound influences constructs the slipperiest of all slopes. As was said in one Supreme Court decision: "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Contrary to the belief of some we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation comprised of a majority who believe in one form or another of Christianity, but we also have populations of people who think and believe differently, religiously and otherwise. If we impose the sanctity or value of one religion over another then we are in essence no different than Islamic fundamentalists who insist reality must be seen their way. There is no difference between a "Christian" nation or an "Islamic" state except except the divergent world views and ideologies. They are both religious governments based on religious ideals and exclusionary by their very nature. Is this what we envision for our country - to become religiously doctrinaire?
We are not a Christian nation. Our form of government is non-sectarian. Those chosen by the people to govern are of varying religious and even non- religious beliefs, as is our populace. In fact the form of our government borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman predecessors, not the bible. Welcome to the age of reason.
We must retain this basic, fundamental principle of democracy or we will lose that which set us apart at its inception from the other nations on Earth. We must maintain the separation of church and state so that all may choose to worship or not to worship a religious or non-sectarian belief or philosophy as they so wish – without sanction or interference by the government. I firmly believe that this is what the Constitutional framers had in mind, but interpretations have been debated for hundreds of years and obviously will continue. In his zeal to impose his views on the matter, Sebstiani has reopened this kettle of fish, so I expect this battle will rage on. And to what end really? There are plenty of churches in Sonoma and no dearth of creches, etc., adorn their properties. Or is this just more divisive behavior we've come to expect from the Republican religious right-wing who rejoice in driving ideological wedges between those who disagree with their aims? We'll see.
Councilman Sebastiani has decided he wants to revisit the Plaza Use Policies regarding the holiday display policy, and he'll present his thoughts on the matter at the upcoming city council meeting on the 19th at the Vet's. Building. Early in his nascent career in local politics, Mr. Sebastiani expressed a fervent wish to reinstate the nativity scene on the Plaza at Xmas time, drudging up past feelings that wracked the community 17 years ago, and will probably reoccur this go around. Oddly, Sebastiani, who has steadfastly refused to consider national issues such as the Iraq war or immigration reform despite their having substantial and demonstrable local effects and impacts, is all too willing to take on a Constitutional issue that has been debated practically since its inception. How he has managed in his mind to tease this 1st Amendment directive, which is clearly an overarching issue of national scope, is a puzzle that the councilman will have to unravel for our edification at the meeting.
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First let’s begin with a little history lesson.
The birth of this nation ushered in a fundamental shift as to the purpose and the structure of government. It saw the end of monarchy and the flowering of democracy – a profound and radical departure. Under governance by monarchy or totalitarian dictate the people served the government. In a democracy the people were the government – elected and interchangeable by popular vote. The government became that which served the public interest.
The people who crafted the Constitution that would establish this new and ground-breaking form of government were well aware of the pitfalls of policy set by decree at the whim or pleasure of a single individual – a king or potentate – or policy set by powerful institutions such as the military or predominant religious groups to serve their particular interests. Therefore they constructed a document of laws that focused on individual freedoms, individual human rights, a press free to go wherever it wanted, and no religious restrictions or adoption of any religious belief by the government. They knew this was a key element in forming a union between disparate factions with differing objectives. They knew that church and state must stay separate for the sake of building a coherent though diverse populace, which is what they were then, and what we are now. And it’s a good thing.
A nativity scene crèche honoring the birth of Jesus Christ is Christian iconography of the highest order. It celebrates one religion – one religious point of view among many others. If a particular religion can place its bedrock theological symbol on property owned by our government, and therefore owned in common by the public, it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. In the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment, "Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of Government." From time to time religious groups have tried end-runs around the First Amendment's attempt to keep church and state separate by incorporating other religions symbols in conjunction with Christian ones on government property, in essence saying, "see, this isn't government holding one religion over any other, so it's not really unconstitutional." Nevertheless this is still an attempt to water down the very first directive of the Bill of Rights, wisely telling us to keep government and religion separate; for an intermingling of the two profound influences constructs the slipperiest of all slopes. As was said in one Supreme Court decision: "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Contrary to the belief of some we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation comprised of a majority who believe in one form or another of Christianity, but we also have populations of people who think and believe differently, religiously and otherwise. If we impose the sanctity or value of one religion over another then we are in essence no different than Islamic fundamentalists who insist reality must be seen their way. There is no difference between a "Christian" nation or an "Islamic" state except except the divergent world views and ideologies. They are both religious governments based on religious ideals and exclusionary by their very nature. Is this what we envision for our country - to become religiously doctrinaire?
We are not a Christian nation. Our form of government is non-sectarian. Those chosen by the people to govern are of varying religious and even non- religious beliefs, as is our populace. In fact the form of our government borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman predecessors, not the bible. Welcome to the age of reason.
We must retain this basic, fundamental principle of democracy or we will lose that which set us apart at its inception from the other nations on Earth. We must maintain the separation of church and state so that all may choose to worship or not to worship a religious or non-sectarian belief or philosophy as they so wish – without sanction or interference by the government. I firmly believe that this is what the Constitutional framers had in mind, but interpretations have been debated for hundreds of years and obviously will continue. In his zeal to impose his views on the matter, Sebstiani has reopened this kettle of fish, so I expect this battle will rage on. And to what end really? There are plenty of churches in Sonoma and no dearth of creches, etc., adorn their properties. Or is this just more divisive behavior we've come to expect from the Republican religious right-wing who rejoice in driving ideological wedges between those who disagree with their aims? We'll see.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Republican Scam to Win the '08 Presidential Election
By Tom Martin
The Republicans under the banner of a committee misnamed "Californians for Equal Representation" are gathering signatures for an initiative for the June primary ballot that will do the following: Distribute California's electoral votes by the outcome in each Congressional District and statewide for the votes representing the U.S. Senators. This isn't a new idea, and it is present in Maine and Nebraska where the number of districts number nine (9) and the state uniformally votes one way in any event. However, in California if this were in place in 2000 and 2004 GW Bush would have gotten 20 additional electoral votes - equal to the total from the State of Ohio.
When in graduate school circa 1961-63 at UCSB in Gorden Baker's class, a colleague and friend of Gene Lee, we did a study of a variety of electoral "reform" ideas using data from the election of 1960. Nationwide, in the case of the division of electoral votes by CD and Senate seats, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.
The same would have occurred if the electoral votes had been divided between candidates based on the percent of the popular vote received on a state by state basis.
In each case, however, Kennedy would still have received a larger popular vote than Nixon. These "reforms" carry over the bias of the Constitution towards small states in the E.C. The two senators from Montana represent a fraction of the population that a California, New York, Pennsylvania, or Texas senator does. However, their votes carry equal weight. Within states, the voice of the majority is often tempered by gerrymandering districts or natural pockets of contrary views. Simply look at the distribution of California's blue and red counties for proof.
The point is ... in the absence of a popular vote for President, the winner take all system in the electoral college more often reflects the popular will notwithstanding the theft of the Presidency in 2000 and two elections in the 19th Century. Democrats stand to lose in any reform other than a popular vote. Otherwise, why would the California State Republican Party be promoting Initiative No. 07-0032? The Law office of Bell, McAndrew, and Hiltachk - lawyers for the Cal. Rep. Party - is the address for "Californians for Equal Representation." Hiltachk is Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for electoral matters and handled the recall election of the Governor!
Below is a copy of the New Yorker article.
----------
Votescam
By Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker
At first glance, next year’s Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass.
Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm’s managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters. Hiltachk and his firm have been involved in many well-financed ballot initiatives before, including the recall that put Arnold in Sacramento. They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like—the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006, for example. It would have raised the state minimum wage slightly—by a lesser amount than it has since been raised—and, in the fine print, would have made it impossible ever to raise it again except by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, while, for good measure, eliminating overtime for millions of workers.
“Equal Representation” sounds good, too. And the winner-take-all rule, which is in force in all but two states, does seem unfair on the face of it. (The two are Maine and Nebraska, which use congressional-district allocation. But they are so small—only five districts between them—and so homogeneous that neither has ever split its electoral votes.) It would be obviously unjust for a state to give all its legislative seats to the party that gets the most votes statewide. So why should Party A get a hundred per cent of that state’s electoral votes if forty per cent of its voters support Party B? No wonder Democrats and Republicans alike initially react to this proposal in a strongly positive way. To most people, the electoral-college status quo feels intuitively wrong. So does war. But that doesn’t make unilateral disarmament a no-brainer.
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that’s good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller—it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina’s fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats—but the hands would be just as dirty.
The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It’s the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay’s 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
The Republicans under the banner of a committee misnamed "Californians for Equal Representation" are gathering signatures for an initiative for the June primary ballot that will do the following: Distribute California's electoral votes by the outcome in each Congressional District and statewide for the votes representing the U.S. Senators. This isn't a new idea, and it is present in Maine and Nebraska where the number of districts number nine (9) and the state uniformally votes one way in any event. However, in California if this were in place in 2000 and 2004 GW Bush would have gotten 20 additional electoral votes - equal to the total from the State of Ohio.
When in graduate school circa 1961-63 at UCSB in Gorden Baker's class, a colleague and friend of Gene Lee, we did a study of a variety of electoral "reform" ideas using data from the election of 1960. Nationwide, in the case of the division of electoral votes by CD and Senate seats, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.
The same would have occurred if the electoral votes had been divided between candidates based on the percent of the popular vote received on a state by state basis.
In each case, however, Kennedy would still have received a larger popular vote than Nixon. These "reforms" carry over the bias of the Constitution towards small states in the E.C. The two senators from Montana represent a fraction of the population that a California, New York, Pennsylvania, or Texas senator does. However, their votes carry equal weight. Within states, the voice of the majority is often tempered by gerrymandering districts or natural pockets of contrary views. Simply look at the distribution of California's blue and red counties for proof.
The point is ... in the absence of a popular vote for President, the winner take all system in the electoral college more often reflects the popular will notwithstanding the theft of the Presidency in 2000 and two elections in the 19th Century. Democrats stand to lose in any reform other than a popular vote. Otherwise, why would the California State Republican Party be promoting Initiative No. 07-0032? The Law office of Bell, McAndrew, and Hiltachk - lawyers for the Cal. Rep. Party - is the address for "Californians for Equal Representation." Hiltachk is Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for electoral matters and handled the recall election of the Governor!
Below is a copy of the New Yorker article.
----------
Votescam
By Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker
At first glance, next year’s Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass.
Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm’s managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters. Hiltachk and his firm have been involved in many well-financed ballot initiatives before, including the recall that put Arnold in Sacramento. They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like—the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006, for example. It would have raised the state minimum wage slightly—by a lesser amount than it has since been raised—and, in the fine print, would have made it impossible ever to raise it again except by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, while, for good measure, eliminating overtime for millions of workers.
“Equal Representation” sounds good, too. And the winner-take-all rule, which is in force in all but two states, does seem unfair on the face of it. (The two are Maine and Nebraska, which use congressional-district allocation. But they are so small—only five districts between them—and so homogeneous that neither has ever split its electoral votes.) It would be obviously unjust for a state to give all its legislative seats to the party that gets the most votes statewide. So why should Party A get a hundred per cent of that state’s electoral votes if forty per cent of its voters support Party B? No wonder Democrats and Republicans alike initially react to this proposal in a strongly positive way. To most people, the electoral-college status quo feels intuitively wrong. So does war. But that doesn’t make unilateral disarmament a no-brainer.
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that’s good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller—it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina’s fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats—but the hands would be just as dirty.
The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It’s the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay’s 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Fair Immigration Resolution Redux
In May of this year an editorial appeared in the Index-Tribune in regard to the council having passed a resolution (No. 45-2006), “…encourag[ing] Congress to endorse criteria for fair immigration reform laws.” The editorial cited the “immigration reform criteria” – eight somewhat broad, general principles of “fairness” proposed for adoption by Congress, – and asked the council if it was willing to take the next step in furthering discussion of the national issue of immigration. This question was posed despite there being a 3-member majority opposed to any discussion of national issues, as the editorial pointed out.
The editorial went on to ask if “…the council [was] willing to have a substantive discussion,” with certain guidelines, about the immigration bill that was then being debated by Congress, and look at the probable impacts provisions of that bill would have on our community. The editorial further asked if it wasn’t the council’s “…responsibility to try to understand and evaluate the local consequences of any such sweeping legislation.”
Now we all know the immigration reform bill is kaput, but that doesn’t mean the key provisions of that bill are issues that have gone away. To the contrary. They still hang over us and affect our lives. We are faced with increasing ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) raids, there is a climate of fear in the Latino community touching both legal and illegal immigrants, businesses are still in financial jeopardy regarding hiring processes and potential labor shortages, and those concerned most about border security are not satisfied with the status quo. So even though our electeds in Congress couldn’t deal with it, the many issues about immigration are alive and with us on a daily basis.
The I-T editorial also asked if the council was willing to apply the criteria for fairness as put forth in the resolution it had already passed to the key issues of immigration, through discussion, examination and debate. Does a merit system as opposed to the long-standing family based system meet the “fairness” criteria? What about questions of amnesty or paths to citizenship? What is the significance of sanctuary cities and counties and its effect on local residents?
So the question put to the council by the newspaper still remains. Will the council take the lead and address in some form the many relevant local issues as they apply to the fairness criteria of the resolution? Or does its passage of the resolution amount to nothing more than, in the words of the editorial, an “…insincere [and] empty gesture”?
The editorial went on to ask if “…the council [was] willing to have a substantive discussion,” with certain guidelines, about the immigration bill that was then being debated by Congress, and look at the probable impacts provisions of that bill would have on our community. The editorial further asked if it wasn’t the council’s “…responsibility to try to understand and evaluate the local consequences of any such sweeping legislation.”
Now we all know the immigration reform bill is kaput, but that doesn’t mean the key provisions of that bill are issues that have gone away. To the contrary. They still hang over us and affect our lives. We are faced with increasing ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) raids, there is a climate of fear in the Latino community touching both legal and illegal immigrants, businesses are still in financial jeopardy regarding hiring processes and potential labor shortages, and those concerned most about border security are not satisfied with the status quo. So even though our electeds in Congress couldn’t deal with it, the many issues about immigration are alive and with us on a daily basis.
The I-T editorial also asked if the council was willing to apply the criteria for fairness as put forth in the resolution it had already passed to the key issues of immigration, through discussion, examination and debate. Does a merit system as opposed to the long-standing family based system meet the “fairness” criteria? What about questions of amnesty or paths to citizenship? What is the significance of sanctuary cities and counties and its effect on local residents?
So the question put to the council by the newspaper still remains. Will the council take the lead and address in some form the many relevant local issues as they apply to the fairness criteria of the resolution? Or does its passage of the resolution amount to nothing more than, in the words of the editorial, an “…insincere [and] empty gesture”?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
It’s Not Easy Being Green
The singularly superlative satirical song writer, Tom Lehrer, when asked why he stopped writing the comic songs with the brilliant lyrics he became famous for is said to have said: “When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize it was the death of satire.”
Not of the same depth of depravity or height of head-scratching, jaw-dropping wonderment, but ironically bewildering nevertheless is Infineon Raceway awarded for being an outstanding green business. Think about that one, folks. Giving an award for environmental conservation, ecological awareness and climate warming consciousness to a business that dumps a sizeable shitload of pollution on the planet. I wonder what the Co2 amount comes to just over a NASCAR weekend?
Not to worry though, they do a bang-up job recycling their garbage we’re told and their local corporate management shtups the local charities with funding, all the while cultivating the town’s prominent set. To diss Infineon, formerly Sears Point Raceway, is tantamount to blasphemy, and usually brings clucking criticism from local corporate quarters in the form of letters to the newspapers telling critics how insensitive they are to Infineon’s good neighborliness and community involvement. And those claims are true. What’s also true is Infineon is the seat of a business unfriendly to the planet in its rather large use of resources and distribution of waste.
Whether one likes or dislikes auto racing is irrelevant. What is relevant is that giving Infineon Raceway an award for being green, while not Kissingerian, is like awarding a kid for good spelling in his graffiti. Maybe it’s a cost/benefit thing. Yes, they pollute the hell out of the planet, especially the Sonoma County corner of it, but look how much pleasure they bring to millions. And not to overlook the benefit to the county in tax dollars.
Simply put, it insults one’s intelligence to be told that an auto racing business is green because they do some good things. It’s good that they do good things, but they’re NOT green by any reasonable measure of the scales. That simply flies in the face of reality.
And that’s why this blog gives its flying, golden goddess of BS award to: the Sonoma Economic Development Partnership for bestowing a green award on the raceway.
On the other hand, the Benzigers won and they well deserve it. If you need an example of a bona fide green business use that as your template, Sonoma Economic Development Partnership.
Not of the same depth of depravity or height of head-scratching, jaw-dropping wonderment, but ironically bewildering nevertheless is Infineon Raceway awarded for being an outstanding green business. Think about that one, folks. Giving an award for environmental conservation, ecological awareness and climate warming consciousness to a business that dumps a sizeable shitload of pollution on the planet. I wonder what the Co2 amount comes to just over a NASCAR weekend?
Not to worry though, they do a bang-up job recycling their garbage we’re told and their local corporate management shtups the local charities with funding, all the while cultivating the town’s prominent set. To diss Infineon, formerly Sears Point Raceway, is tantamount to blasphemy, and usually brings clucking criticism from local corporate quarters in the form of letters to the newspapers telling critics how insensitive they are to Infineon’s good neighborliness and community involvement. And those claims are true. What’s also true is Infineon is the seat of a business unfriendly to the planet in its rather large use of resources and distribution of waste.
Whether one likes or dislikes auto racing is irrelevant. What is relevant is that giving Infineon Raceway an award for being green, while not Kissingerian, is like awarding a kid for good spelling in his graffiti. Maybe it’s a cost/benefit thing. Yes, they pollute the hell out of the planet, especially the Sonoma County corner of it, but look how much pleasure they bring to millions. And not to overlook the benefit to the county in tax dollars.
Simply put, it insults one’s intelligence to be told that an auto racing business is green because they do some good things. It’s good that they do good things, but they’re NOT green by any reasonable measure of the scales. That simply flies in the face of reality.
And that’s why this blog gives its flying, golden goddess of BS award to: the Sonoma Economic Development Partnership for bestowing a green award on the raceway.
On the other hand, the Benzigers won and they well deserve it. If you need an example of a bona fide green business use that as your template, Sonoma Economic Development Partnership.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Report From June 6 Council Meeting
At the last council meeting two things happened that left me, quite frankly, amazed.
First was the poignant, passionate testimony by Deborah Stroski in regard to the strom trooper ICE raids in Boyes Springs, brutally and callously ripping parents away from their families while their children watched, shocked and devastated. These people were not guilty of some heinous, violent crime to have warranted such treatment. Some of these people have lived and worked in our community for 15-20 years – responsible, law abiding, tax paying people. These are friends, neighbors and co-workers.
As Ms. Stroski so aptly pointed out, these men and women are the working backbone of the economy of this city and this county. How does this council or anyone in this room think this community would continue to function if these people decide en masse to withhold their labor? These are the folks taking care of this community’s very young children and our older parents no longer able to care for themselves. These are the folks who make Sonoma’s service industry and wine industry function. Who the hell do we think are working the vineyards – Canadians?
Ms. Stroski brought the 6-year-old daughter of Adrian Corriera who has lived and worked here for 15 years, achieving managerial status. This child had to helplessly look on as her father was sadistically snatched away from her and her family. She pleaded, heart-broken and frantic for this council’s help.
The only one, I repeat – the only one – on this council to respond to this desperate child’s and Ms. Stroski’s impassioned pleas was Ken Brown. The rest of you blithely moved on to immediately discuss some minutia of city business that easily could have waited. My God, don’t we share the same reality? Where is your humanity? Are you unable or incapable of responding to a child’s plight when it’s happening before your eyes? Would you treat your own children with such callous indifference?
The second thing that blew my mind was the hour-long discussion about discussion of items on the agenda. Not liking the City Attorney’s instruction concerning The Brown Act – if an item is on the agenda it’s open for discussion by the public and the council. Period! What is it about that that’s so hard to fathom? Reasonable time limits can be set for comments, as has always been the case.
But not liking The Brown Act, established to insure public participation and transparency in politics, Ms. Sanders asked for guidance from a gentleman in the audience who counseled that a disgruntled majority on the council could “vote with their feet” – get up and walk out, thereby shutting discussion down, and probably effectively terminating the meeting as well. Wisely, the City Attorney cautioned the council not to act in such a manner. I’d add to Ms. Sanders that that kind of sword cuts both ways. Perhaps the honorable Mr. Brown wouldn’t employ such a disruptive and childish tactic, there may come a day when today’s majority is tomorrow’s minority, and Sanders and Sebastiani want public discussion on an item they think is important. Slip the shoe on the other foot and see if you think walking out of a meeting because you don’t like the issue is such a good idea.
First was the poignant, passionate testimony by Deborah Stroski in regard to the strom trooper ICE raids in Boyes Springs, brutally and callously ripping parents away from their families while their children watched, shocked and devastated. These people were not guilty of some heinous, violent crime to have warranted such treatment. Some of these people have lived and worked in our community for 15-20 years – responsible, law abiding, tax paying people. These are friends, neighbors and co-workers.
As Ms. Stroski so aptly pointed out, these men and women are the working backbone of the economy of this city and this county. How does this council or anyone in this room think this community would continue to function if these people decide en masse to withhold their labor? These are the folks taking care of this community’s very young children and our older parents no longer able to care for themselves. These are the folks who make Sonoma’s service industry and wine industry function. Who the hell do we think are working the vineyards – Canadians?
Ms. Stroski brought the 6-year-old daughter of Adrian Corriera who has lived and worked here for 15 years, achieving managerial status. This child had to helplessly look on as her father was sadistically snatched away from her and her family. She pleaded, heart-broken and frantic for this council’s help.
The only one, I repeat – the only one – on this council to respond to this desperate child’s and Ms. Stroski’s impassioned pleas was Ken Brown. The rest of you blithely moved on to immediately discuss some minutia of city business that easily could have waited. My God, don’t we share the same reality? Where is your humanity? Are you unable or incapable of responding to a child’s plight when it’s happening before your eyes? Would you treat your own children with such callous indifference?
The second thing that blew my mind was the hour-long discussion about discussion of items on the agenda. Not liking the City Attorney’s instruction concerning The Brown Act – if an item is on the agenda it’s open for discussion by the public and the council. Period! What is it about that that’s so hard to fathom? Reasonable time limits can be set for comments, as has always been the case.
But not liking The Brown Act, established to insure public participation and transparency in politics, Ms. Sanders asked for guidance from a gentleman in the audience who counseled that a disgruntled majority on the council could “vote with their feet” – get up and walk out, thereby shutting discussion down, and probably effectively terminating the meeting as well. Wisely, the City Attorney cautioned the council not to act in such a manner. I’d add to Ms. Sanders that that kind of sword cuts both ways. Perhaps the honorable Mr. Brown wouldn’t employ such a disruptive and childish tactic, there may come a day when today’s majority is tomorrow’s minority, and Sanders and Sebastiani want public discussion on an item they think is important. Slip the shoe on the other foot and see if you think walking out of a meeting because you don’t like the issue is such a good idea.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Democracy Restored to City Council
By Dave Henderson
After a bitterly criticized aberration from long traditional Council practice, and despite fierce opposition from two Council members during a wide-ranging debate that lasted over an hour, the Sonoma City Council, by a 3-2 vote on June 6, formally approved a norm that restored and formalized the right of any individual Council member to put on the meeting agenda for Council consideration any issue that member judges is deserving of Council attention.
Why is this such a big deal?
Because a 3-member majority, on Feb. 7, 2007, by a tricky maneuver never before seen on the Council, denied Council member Ken Brown, with the support of Steve Barbose, the opportunity to have a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq discussed and voted upon by the Council. Brown was able to put it on the agenda, and some 46 supporters were able to address the Council on the issue, but Mayor Stanley Cohen had craftily set up a novel two-part procedure, whereby a majority vote was required, after public discussion (legally required by California’s Brown Act), to even admit the measure for Council consideration and action. In other words, the Council couldn’t even talk about the resolution, much less vote on it, if a majority voted against considering it. As Council members Joanne Sanders and August Sebastiani and Mayor Cohen duly voted, thus effectively muzzling two Council members, banning the issue that Brown and Barbose regarded as of important concern to many Sonoma voters, and hence disenfranchising those City of Sonoma voters who elected Barbose and Brown to represent them.
The reasons adduced by the three were various. August Sebastiani is vehemently against considering any so-called “national issue,” and Joanne Sanders likewise, and they have not nuanced their position to include national issues that might materially impact Sonoma, such as health care, immigration, Veterans care, No Child Left Behind Act, you name it. Council member Sanders, in addition, seems to regard anything but her own priorities for Sonoma as unimportant, no matter what another Council member might think: painted crosswalks trump everything, literally. Mayor Cohen took another tack. He had informally polled some 100 Sonoma residents over the months, and 80 said No, although he never really said publicly what he specifically asked them. Also, he alleged, “a statement from a small, rural city of Northern California, which is known as an area for its liberal views, will have no effect on those we have elected.”
Whatever one may think of these reasons, the main question, as many have reminded the Council members, is why then did you not simply admit the Iraq Resolution for consideration, call for a motion, and vote it down? That is a straightforward process which no one could take issue with.
The unprecedented procedure they resorted to not only insulated them from the necessity of personally and publicly voting on the Resolution, it had a very different, and more insidious meaning. Its clear message, admitted to in so many words by Sanders and Sebastiani in the Council discussion on June 6, was that no matter how important an issue was to one or two Council members, or to the Sonoma constituents who elected them, even if they’d run their campaign on such an issue – if three members decided to ban that issue from discussion, it was banned and censored.
But each Council member has been elected by the voters of the city at large, who have expressed faith in his or her position on current issues, in his or her character, sense of responsibility, and personal and political judgment. Every other Council member is bound to therefore accord that member the identical respect they owe themselves as representatives of the voters, even if – or especially if – each member represents different groups of those same City of Sonoma citizens. For three members to decide to reject consideration of an item proposed by another member amounts to denying official voice to that member, denying respect to that member, and, hence, denies a voice to the voters he is representing. If those who elected him are unhappy with the issues he is sponsoring, they will decide that at the next election – that is not for other Council members to decide. By not allowing a council member to directly place an item on the agenda for discussion and eventual action, three members of the Council have, in effect, frustrated the democratic system in Sonoma and literally disenfranchised the voters of this city. As Council member Brown said, “To think that I’m going to put an item on the agenda that doesn’t represent the issues and feelings and the beliefs of the people who voted for me not only discounts me, bit in a larger sense discounts the voters in our democracy.”
The issue is not the Iraq Resolution, although Council member Sanders insists that Ken Brown and Steve Barbose, and others who support their position, are pushing for procedural change because “you are still licking your wounds” over the defeat of the Resolution. The issue, rather, was the new rule pulled out of the hat on Feb. 7.
If that cooked up rule had been allowed to remain in effect – a clear violation of The Brown Act, which governs elected body’s protocol – any three or four members now or in the future, in reaction to issues seen as too liberal, or too conservative, or too outrageous – whether that issue is immigration or the Nativity scene in the Plaza or whatever – when three members can deprive another member of his or her opportunity to present a measure to the Council for consideration, that truly smacks of an anti-democratic cabal determined to keep certain members gagged and under their control.
Council members Sebastiani and Sanders desperately opposed a return to the traditional and legal norm. Sebastiani asked, “Where do you draw the line (in what could be brought up)? What if I as a Council member choose to agendize who’s going to start as second baseman for the SF Giants?” To say the least, this attitude showed a stunning disregard for the caliber and maturity of Council members elected by Sonomans. Ms Sanders stated, in various ways, that “it is not appropriate for this body to discuss any issue that 3 people don’t think should be discussed,” thus confusing, fatally, voting on an issue with simply considering an issue that a group of citizens may think of great importance, and with which she may disagree. That view is traditionally known as tyranny of the majority and suppressing of dissenting views. It was pointed out to both Council members that once an issue unpopular to them was admitted to Council discussion, it could be simply defeated by a motion and three votes. This was not acceptable to them.
After a motion by Ms Sanders to take no action was defeated, Mr. Barbose made a motion that each Council member should be able to bring to the agenda, and have considered by the Council, any item, and that such should be the written norm of the Council. Mayor Cohen, who had initiated the new procedure in the Feb. 7 meeting, and who in this June 6 meeting had initially sided with Sanders and Sebastiani, reversed his position and voted with Brown and Barbose, stating, “I’m going to switch my position, and take the challenge that Ken Brown gave me, in saying that he has all the belief in the world that each one of us is going to bring forth something that we believe needs to be considered, and if indeed it doesn’t work out I reserve the right to bring it back for discussion.”
Thus was democracy and respect restored to the Sonoma City Council, even though the last word in the proceedings was uttered by Ms. Sanders: “Crazy.”
After a bitterly criticized aberration from long traditional Council practice, and despite fierce opposition from two Council members during a wide-ranging debate that lasted over an hour, the Sonoma City Council, by a 3-2 vote on June 6, formally approved a norm that restored and formalized the right of any individual Council member to put on the meeting agenda for Council consideration any issue that member judges is deserving of Council attention.
Why is this such a big deal?
Because a 3-member majority, on Feb. 7, 2007, by a tricky maneuver never before seen on the Council, denied Council member Ken Brown, with the support of Steve Barbose, the opportunity to have a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq discussed and voted upon by the Council. Brown was able to put it on the agenda, and some 46 supporters were able to address the Council on the issue, but Mayor Stanley Cohen had craftily set up a novel two-part procedure, whereby a majority vote was required, after public discussion (legally required by California’s Brown Act), to even admit the measure for Council consideration and action. In other words, the Council couldn’t even talk about the resolution, much less vote on it, if a majority voted against considering it. As Council members Joanne Sanders and August Sebastiani and Mayor Cohen duly voted, thus effectively muzzling two Council members, banning the issue that Brown and Barbose regarded as of important concern to many Sonoma voters, and hence disenfranchising those City of Sonoma voters who elected Barbose and Brown to represent them.
The reasons adduced by the three were various. August Sebastiani is vehemently against considering any so-called “national issue,” and Joanne Sanders likewise, and they have not nuanced their position to include national issues that might materially impact Sonoma, such as health care, immigration, Veterans care, No Child Left Behind Act, you name it. Council member Sanders, in addition, seems to regard anything but her own priorities for Sonoma as unimportant, no matter what another Council member might think: painted crosswalks trump everything, literally. Mayor Cohen took another tack. He had informally polled some 100 Sonoma residents over the months, and 80 said No, although he never really said publicly what he specifically asked them. Also, he alleged, “a statement from a small, rural city of Northern California, which is known as an area for its liberal views, will have no effect on those we have elected.”
Whatever one may think of these reasons, the main question, as many have reminded the Council members, is why then did you not simply admit the Iraq Resolution for consideration, call for a motion, and vote it down? That is a straightforward process which no one could take issue with.
The unprecedented procedure they resorted to not only insulated them from the necessity of personally and publicly voting on the Resolution, it had a very different, and more insidious meaning. Its clear message, admitted to in so many words by Sanders and Sebastiani in the Council discussion on June 6, was that no matter how important an issue was to one or two Council members, or to the Sonoma constituents who elected them, even if they’d run their campaign on such an issue – if three members decided to ban that issue from discussion, it was banned and censored.
But each Council member has been elected by the voters of the city at large, who have expressed faith in his or her position on current issues, in his or her character, sense of responsibility, and personal and political judgment. Every other Council member is bound to therefore accord that member the identical respect they owe themselves as representatives of the voters, even if – or especially if – each member represents different groups of those same City of Sonoma citizens. For three members to decide to reject consideration of an item proposed by another member amounts to denying official voice to that member, denying respect to that member, and, hence, denies a voice to the voters he is representing. If those who elected him are unhappy with the issues he is sponsoring, they will decide that at the next election – that is not for other Council members to decide. By not allowing a council member to directly place an item on the agenda for discussion and eventual action, three members of the Council have, in effect, frustrated the democratic system in Sonoma and literally disenfranchised the voters of this city. As Council member Brown said, “To think that I’m going to put an item on the agenda that doesn’t represent the issues and feelings and the beliefs of the people who voted for me not only discounts me, bit in a larger sense discounts the voters in our democracy.”
The issue is not the Iraq Resolution, although Council member Sanders insists that Ken Brown and Steve Barbose, and others who support their position, are pushing for procedural change because “you are still licking your wounds” over the defeat of the Resolution. The issue, rather, was the new rule pulled out of the hat on Feb. 7.
If that cooked up rule had been allowed to remain in effect – a clear violation of The Brown Act, which governs elected body’s protocol – any three or four members now or in the future, in reaction to issues seen as too liberal, or too conservative, or too outrageous – whether that issue is immigration or the Nativity scene in the Plaza or whatever – when three members can deprive another member of his or her opportunity to present a measure to the Council for consideration, that truly smacks of an anti-democratic cabal determined to keep certain members gagged and under their control.
Council members Sebastiani and Sanders desperately opposed a return to the traditional and legal norm. Sebastiani asked, “Where do you draw the line (in what could be brought up)? What if I as a Council member choose to agendize who’s going to start as second baseman for the SF Giants?” To say the least, this attitude showed a stunning disregard for the caliber and maturity of Council members elected by Sonomans. Ms Sanders stated, in various ways, that “it is not appropriate for this body to discuss any issue that 3 people don’t think should be discussed,” thus confusing, fatally, voting on an issue with simply considering an issue that a group of citizens may think of great importance, and with which she may disagree. That view is traditionally known as tyranny of the majority and suppressing of dissenting views. It was pointed out to both Council members that once an issue unpopular to them was admitted to Council discussion, it could be simply defeated by a motion and three votes. This was not acceptable to them.
After a motion by Ms Sanders to take no action was defeated, Mr. Barbose made a motion that each Council member should be able to bring to the agenda, and have considered by the Council, any item, and that such should be the written norm of the Council. Mayor Cohen, who had initiated the new procedure in the Feb. 7 meeting, and who in this June 6 meeting had initially sided with Sanders and Sebastiani, reversed his position and voted with Brown and Barbose, stating, “I’m going to switch my position, and take the challenge that Ken Brown gave me, in saying that he has all the belief in the world that each one of us is going to bring forth something that we believe needs to be considered, and if indeed it doesn’t work out I reserve the right to bring it back for discussion.”
Thus was democracy and respect restored to the Sonoma City Council, even though the last word in the proceedings was uttered by Ms. Sanders: “Crazy.”
A Letter About Community and Free Speech the I-T Didn’t Print
By Bob Edwards
Editor:
Your recent editorial (Community vs. Conspiracy) chides local activists for publicly objecting to police photography of peaceful student demonstrators. You attribute your “passionate exception” to a belief that Sonoma has a “high level of community, a high level of we.” In short, the activists shouldn’t have made a public mountain out of what you consider a molehill.
Disturbing is the implication that in Sonoma “we” don’t make a fuss when “we” see civil rights being coerced. We are told, “What’s missing in all this an understanding of the nature of Sonoma.” In short, these activists are not really one of us but are some menacing band of outside agitators and troublemakers.
The misunderstanding—and it is an insulting, divisive and constitutionally dangerous one—is yours, not that of the students or the adults, both teachers and activists, involved in the incident. Sonoma has minimal tolerance for civil rights abuses. In that regard and contrary to your opinion, we are no different from Berkeley or San Francisco or that place called America. OK... maybe we are different from Texas.
Your own archives hold the evidence that the IT has not covered itself in glory in defending civil rights in Sonoma. Some will recall we are approaching the two-year anniversary of the shameful Fourth of July Parade Incident, when a passionate resident of our community charged into the parade to destroy the sign of antiwar protesters, also members of our community, who were peacefully protesting a government debacle that 75% of the country now recognizes as The Mother of All Blunders. No doubt the attacker felt that sign disturbed the community’s sense of “we,” or at least her vision of who “we” are.
The war wasn’t then widely accepted for the insanity it is, and today some do not see immigration as a happy subject for Happy Valley. Still, the parade incident occurred on the very day our community was celebrating a holiday with some significance for civil rights, and so it is a worthy example of how and why civil rights are considered important in Sonoma. The attacker’s behavior quickly became the butt of public ridicule, letters to the editor and front-page news in your paper. Charitably, the victims did not sue the daylights out of her or the City or the parade sponsors.
As in this latest incident, the IT waffled and equivocated. Recognizing the marchers’ right of free speech, it nonetheless lamented the fact that free speech had to spoil a nice hometown parade. One was left with the impression that the protesters were equally at fault with the sign-ripper for bad judgment. How un-American of them to think that the 4th of July meant something.
Back to the present: I don’t think for a minute that police policy or Chief Sackett OK’d the photographic surveillance of peaceful student protesters, or has a secret plan to do so. Our new Chief is not that kind of guy and no doubt he finds all this fuss a very unwanted distraction for his department. In a time of government-sponsored paranoia, the officer may have mistakenly thought he was doing his job. After all, if police are required to patrol public schools, those students must be a dangerous lot, right? But does that make the officer a Bush-variety thug?
No, but it doesn’t excuse what even your editorial acknowledges should not have been done: “Police surveillance of lawful citizen assembly is contrary to the spirit of democracy and violates the surveillance guidelines for law enforcement” developed by the state attorney general.
The point is that such government surveillance of peaceful citizens is precisely the kind of conduct that chills (in the phrasing of the Supreme Court) free speech and it deserves a very public and very vocal response whether it takes place in Berkeley or Sonoma or Crawford, Texas.
To privately and quietly address suspected public abuses by public officials, as you suggest, is precisely the sweep-it-under-the-rug cover-up that totalitarians everywhere love, because it perpetuates the myth that such abuses can’t and don’t happen or, if they do, they are nothing about which we should get passionately upset.
If you thought about it for more than a reflex, you would see that what you suggest is that the people surrender their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government—i.e.. in public or in private. Which is exactly what they did when they confronted the officer on the day in question and later protested to city council. And while you have concluded that the officer’s action was not improper, others might disagree. In any event, it may come as a surprise to learn that the exercise of the right to petition the government is NOT pre-conditioned in the least on whether the petitioners are right or wrong in their claims of government wrongdoing. The Constitution contemplates that public discussion will air the facts so the people can decide the truth for themselves; truth which can never reliably come from behind closed government doors. If it turns out the accusations are false, the best place for that humiliation to occur is in public discussion.
Rather than upbraid their public conduct, you should have praised the activists for providing the students a living civics lesson that they do not get in school every day and, regrettably, do not get from the Index Tribune, whose understanding of the First Amendment is fundamentally corrupted by mindless boosterism. Would that someday the IT is as unequivocally passionate about civil rights as it is about its nostalgic, cotton-candy view of a community that exists only in its wildest dreams, and in our worst nightmares.
But the good news is that you may have another chance to get it right. I await your editorial response to the inevitable protests should the city decide to pursue a councilman’s vision of erecting on the Plaza a diorama celebrating his religious beliefs. Yes, another one of those community-dividing First Amendment Constitutional civil rights issues and, potentially, a very expensive legal experiment for the City, too. Adding to the newsworthy excitement will be council’s new agenda-setting policy: Discussing and deciding federal issues like the First Amendment, and that whole separation of church and state thing, may not qualify as “legitimate city business.” I note the Iraq War apparently was not a local concern, even though it spoiled our 4th of July parade and threatens to do it again this year. Bethlehem is in that same troubled neighborhood and, well, I’m told that if it exists at all heaven is supposedly even farther away and that if there is a God/god there or anywhere, He/She/It is probably way outside council’s jurisdiction.
Anyway, before pouring editorial concrete around those topics, I respectfully recommend a little more research, a bit more thought and a lot less “passionate exceptions. “ The Constitution would be a good place to start, as it may contain many shocking surprises.
FYI—If you would like a reference to the source of the I-T’s prior equivocation regarding free speech, it can be found in Mr. Lynch’s editorial of July 15, 2005 in your archives of that date, entitled “Don’t Ruin a Good Thing.”
Friday, June 8, 2007
Council Process Almost Short-circuited
By Dave Henderson
Comments to City Council, June 6, 2007:
I am continuing to respond to this Council’s refusal, on February 7, to even consider and discuss, much less vote upon, a resolution about withdrawing US armed forces from Iraq.
On 5 previous occasions, I discussed reasons given on that occasion by councilmembers Cohen, Sebastiani, and Sanders. Tonight, related to Item 6B on the agenda, I want to address the reprehensible ploy engineered by Mayor Cohen, and agreed to by Mr. Sebastiani and Ms Sanders, which overturned the traditional practice for councilmembers placing items on the City Council agenda. I want to urge you to return to that former practice.
By not allowing a councilmember to directly place an item on the agenda for discussion and eventual action, you are, in effect, frustrating the democratic system in Sonoma and literally disenfranchising the voters of this city.
Each member here has been elected by the voters of the city at large, who have expressed faith in his or her position on current issues, and in his or her personal and political judgment. For three of you to decide to reject agendizing an item proposed by another member amounts to denying official voice to that member and, hence, denying a voice to the voters he is representing. If those who elected him are unhappy with the issues he is sponsoring, they will decide that at the next election. That is not for you to decide.
When any three or four members now or in the future, in reaction to issues that are either seen as too liberal, or too conservative, or too outrageous, whether that issue is immigration or the Nativity scene in the Plaza or whatever, when three members can deprive another member of his or her opportunity to present a measure to this Council for consideration, that truly smacks of an anti-democratic cabal determined to keep certain members gagged and under their control. I find that outrageous and I find it hard to believe that three members of this Council, in the City of Sonoma, in 2007, could perpetrate such a blatant injustice on the city.
Finally, I have to wonder at the reason behind such a maneuver.
I realize that at least two members will oppose any so-called national issues. But why would they not simply allow the issue to be presented, and then vote it down?
The only thing I can come up with is that by not admitting the issue to the agenda, in this case the Iraq Resolution, you insulated yourselves from having to stand up and actually cast a Yes or a No vote, and from thus experiencing, either presently or in the future, the consequences of that vote. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but you have not given us any reason for that maneuver--that I am aware of, at least--, and I can conceive of no other valid reason. If you do have other reasons, then you have done yourselves a disservice by resorting to a measure that creates doubts about your justification.
I urge to you to formally take steps to ensure that such a procedure is never resorted to again on this Council.
Editor’s note: At the end of this meeting the council voted 3-2 to restore the long standing process by which a council member can bring any item to a council agenda thereby opening it up for discussion by the council and the public. Legally this process is required by the Brown Act, which governs publicly elected body’s proceedings. This legally binding process was vehemently opposed by council members Sanders and Sebastiani who labeled it a “tyranny of the minority.”
Their objective was to have a vote regarding an agendized item before any discussion took place by which a majority against the item would effectively kill it then and there. By so doing the public and the other council members would not be able to hear and discuss the item. In any event the law (Brown Act), fairness, respect for the public’s right to comment, and common sense prevailed.
Comments to City Council, June 6, 2007:
I am continuing to respond to this Council’s refusal, on February 7, to even consider and discuss, much less vote upon, a resolution about withdrawing US armed forces from Iraq.
On 5 previous occasions, I discussed reasons given on that occasion by councilmembers Cohen, Sebastiani, and Sanders. Tonight, related to Item 6B on the agenda, I want to address the reprehensible ploy engineered by Mayor Cohen, and agreed to by Mr. Sebastiani and Ms Sanders, which overturned the traditional practice for councilmembers placing items on the City Council agenda. I want to urge you to return to that former practice.
By not allowing a councilmember to directly place an item on the agenda for discussion and eventual action, you are, in effect, frustrating the democratic system in Sonoma and literally disenfranchising the voters of this city.
Each member here has been elected by the voters of the city at large, who have expressed faith in his or her position on current issues, and in his or her personal and political judgment. For three of you to decide to reject agendizing an item proposed by another member amounts to denying official voice to that member and, hence, denying a voice to the voters he is representing. If those who elected him are unhappy with the issues he is sponsoring, they will decide that at the next election. That is not for you to decide.
When any three or four members now or in the future, in reaction to issues that are either seen as too liberal, or too conservative, or too outrageous, whether that issue is immigration or the Nativity scene in the Plaza or whatever, when three members can deprive another member of his or her opportunity to present a measure to this Council for consideration, that truly smacks of an anti-democratic cabal determined to keep certain members gagged and under their control. I find that outrageous and I find it hard to believe that three members of this Council, in the City of Sonoma, in 2007, could perpetrate such a blatant injustice on the city.
Finally, I have to wonder at the reason behind such a maneuver.
I realize that at least two members will oppose any so-called national issues. But why would they not simply allow the issue to be presented, and then vote it down?
The only thing I can come up with is that by not admitting the issue to the agenda, in this case the Iraq Resolution, you insulated yourselves from having to stand up and actually cast a Yes or a No vote, and from thus experiencing, either presently or in the future, the consequences of that vote. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but you have not given us any reason for that maneuver--that I am aware of, at least--, and I can conceive of no other valid reason. If you do have other reasons, then you have done yourselves a disservice by resorting to a measure that creates doubts about your justification.
I urge to you to formally take steps to ensure that such a procedure is never resorted to again on this Council.
Editor’s note: At the end of this meeting the council voted 3-2 to restore the long standing process by which a council member can bring any item to a council agenda thereby opening it up for discussion by the council and the public. Legally this process is required by the Brown Act, which governs publicly elected body’s proceedings. This legally binding process was vehemently opposed by council members Sanders and Sebastiani who labeled it a “tyranny of the minority.”
Their objective was to have a vote regarding an agendized item before any discussion took place by which a majority against the item would effectively kill it then and there. By so doing the public and the other council members would not be able to hear and discuss the item. In any event the law (Brown Act), fairness, respect for the public’s right to comment, and common sense prevailed.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Police Surveillance and Your Constitutional Rights
Ever hear of The Lockyer Manual? Not to worry, almost nobody has. Not even many police departments, and it’s all about them and their interactions with public citizens during political demonstrations.
Basically the Lockyer Manual, created by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, sets down legal guidelines regarding police surveillance during public demonstrations, marches and the like by codifying under what explicit conditions police or sheriff’s departments can photograph and record participants without violating their state constitutional rights to privacy.
It all hinges on this: Absent an articulable criminal predicate for the gathering of information it will not be possible to justify it [surveillance] under the general heading of intelligence activity.
In other words, the criterion, the benchmark, the only reason for law enforcement doing surveillance is that there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. By setting down this legal marker, California’s constitutional right to privacy provides greater protections than the federal Constitution. Legal precedent established by the California Supreme Court established that there must be some connection between the information gathered, e.g., photographs, and unlawful activity.
Which brings us to an editorial in The Sun on Thursday, May 24 titled, “Cops on Watch,” that’s so full of suppositional speculation it’s the kind of drivel that gives BS a bad name. I’ve been told that The Sun gang-edits by committee so there’s no way to address an individual for writing this crap, and it’s always left unsigned. Frankly I don’t believe this. What I believe is that Sun publisher Bill Hammett penned this misleading and incorrect legal assessment of citizens exercising their constitutional rights of speech, association and privacy.
Firstly, no one, not Dave Henderson, Mike Smith, any adult or student at the demonstration or I has complained about police presence during the event. The objection voiced to the City Council regarded the unlawful photography of the participants by a sheriff’s department officer absent a crime having been committed. The editorial states that the students “violated school policy by leaving campus” “violated municipal codes by obstructing traffic lanes” while marching up Broadway. Give me a break! High School principal Michaela Philpot and several teachers attended the march/demonstration from the school. If the students violated school policy in actively learning a valuable civic and constitutional principle then it’s the school’s business, not local law enforcement’s. If Mr. Hammett and whoever joined him in this cockamamie editorial is so upset about a short time of obstructing traffic early on a Monday morning then perhaps in the interest of good law enforcement and community protection he should press charges against the students, and while he’s at it the sheriff’s deputy who accompanied them, but saw no reason to bust them.
Secondly, the editorial “presumes” pictures were being taken “in order to be able later to identify those student in the march.” If Hammett or any of his reporters except Mr. Mejia from El Sol had actually covered the demonstration he would know that the principal and some teachers were present. I think it’s safe to assume they know who these students are. Then the editorial speculates that it was necessary to take photographs to have on record in case there was a disturbance. Read the laws regarding surveillance, Mr. Hammett, and what police can and cannot do during public gatherings. Lockyer’s guideline plainly states that it is a mistake of constitutional dimension to gather information for a criminal intelligence file where there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed.
Bizarrely the editorial goes on “…to ponder what might have happened” if there was organized opposition to the march and if violence ensued. Okay, then there would have been grounds for photographing and police intervention and for whatever else would have been necessary to keep the peace. But what Hammett has done in arguing the case for surveillance is set up a straw man. Again, there was and is no opposition to a police presence during the march – there was and is opposition to photographic surveillance of a peaceful, orderly and school monitored constitutionally legal gathering of students and adults exercising their civil rights when there was no criminal predicate to justify it.
Another straw man argument posed by the editorial’s writer or writers, ostensibly assisted by their “legal folks,” posits that “there is no ‘expectation of privacy’” for people gathering in public, or cameras on school buses or mounted in police patrol cars. Stationary cameras now commonly used in public areas or private businesses or in school busses, set up for the public’s protection is a different scenario altogether than photographic surveillance during free speech activity for the purpose of gathering intelligence. And the fact of the matter is the Sheriff’s Department officer was photographing adults as well as students. If this was not for the purpose of gathering intelligence then the question is – what was it being done for? This is the question that should have been asked in the newspaper’s editorial. Furthermore when asked why he was photographing the demonstrators, the officer, J. Cobert answered that he was doing it on his own volition. He later fessed up that Sgt. Shubel of the Sonoma Police Department, ordered him to do so. What the truth of this is has yet to be determined.
But The Sun’s fatuous screed was too busy dissing those adults who stood in solidarity with the Latino student’s protest for fair immigration reform, and mouthing stupid platitudes about people who still live in the 60s. If living in the 60s means fighting for our dwindling civil rights, standing up against illegal police procedures, and supporting the human rights of our Latino brothers and sisters then I’m guilty as charged. My fellow travelers and I will oppose illegal and immoral wars, unjust social persecution, and government interference in our right to dissent. That’s what we learned in the 60s in the struggle for civil rights, women’s rights, and student’s right,s and in opposition to another immoral and unnecessary war for dominance. How quickly we forget, and how terrible a price we pay for our amnesia.
Lockyer wrote the manual in order to issue guidelines for local law enforcement agencies, and sent it out to every police chief and sheriff in the state in 2003 in the form of a book titled, “Criminal Intelligence Systems: A California Perspective.” The question is: Did they read it and do they care? A 2005 survey taken by the ACLU indicates a resounding “no.” In its report titled, “The State of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of Political Activity in Northern and Central California,” it’s stated: “The survey revealed a profound lack of regulation and a disappointing level of familiarity with the Lockyer Manual.” It further states: “The vast majority of law enforcement agencies did not have policies regulating the circumstances under which officers may monitor or gather information on individuals engaged in political activity.”
Hopefully the Sonoma Police Department will adopt and implement local law enforcement regulations that will preserve constitutionally protected civil liberties, and that will highlight the need for increasingly threatened privacy protections. I can see no reason why the community and the law enforcement agency cannot create these guidelines in a timely and mutually respectful manner.
Basically the Lockyer Manual, created by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, sets down legal guidelines regarding police surveillance during public demonstrations, marches and the like by codifying under what explicit conditions police or sheriff’s departments can photograph and record participants without violating their state constitutional rights to privacy.
It all hinges on this: Absent an articulable criminal predicate for the gathering of information it will not be possible to justify it [surveillance] under the general heading of intelligence activity.
In other words, the criterion, the benchmark, the only reason for law enforcement doing surveillance is that there must be reasonable suspicion of a crime. By setting down this legal marker, California’s constitutional right to privacy provides greater protections than the federal Constitution. Legal precedent established by the California Supreme Court established that there must be some connection between the information gathered, e.g., photographs, and unlawful activity.
Which brings us to an editorial in The Sun on Thursday, May 24 titled, “Cops on Watch,” that’s so full of suppositional speculation it’s the kind of drivel that gives BS a bad name. I’ve been told that The Sun gang-edits by committee so there’s no way to address an individual for writing this crap, and it’s always left unsigned. Frankly I don’t believe this. What I believe is that Sun publisher Bill Hammett penned this misleading and incorrect legal assessment of citizens exercising their constitutional rights of speech, association and privacy.
Firstly, no one, not Dave Henderson, Mike Smith, any adult or student at the demonstration or I has complained about police presence during the event. The objection voiced to the City Council regarded the unlawful photography of the participants by a sheriff’s department officer absent a crime having been committed. The editorial states that the students “violated school policy by leaving campus” “violated municipal codes by obstructing traffic lanes” while marching up Broadway. Give me a break! High School principal Michaela Philpot and several teachers attended the march/demonstration from the school. If the students violated school policy in actively learning a valuable civic and constitutional principle then it’s the school’s business, not local law enforcement’s. If Mr. Hammett and whoever joined him in this cockamamie editorial is so upset about a short time of obstructing traffic early on a Monday morning then perhaps in the interest of good law enforcement and community protection he should press charges against the students, and while he’s at it the sheriff’s deputy who accompanied them, but saw no reason to bust them.
Secondly, the editorial “presumes” pictures were being taken “in order to be able later to identify those student in the march.” If Hammett or any of his reporters except Mr. Mejia from El Sol had actually covered the demonstration he would know that the principal and some teachers were present. I think it’s safe to assume they know who these students are. Then the editorial speculates that it was necessary to take photographs to have on record in case there was a disturbance. Read the laws regarding surveillance, Mr. Hammett, and what police can and cannot do during public gatherings. Lockyer’s guideline plainly states that it is a mistake of constitutional dimension to gather information for a criminal intelligence file where there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed.
Bizarrely the editorial goes on “…to ponder what might have happened” if there was organized opposition to the march and if violence ensued. Okay, then there would have been grounds for photographing and police intervention and for whatever else would have been necessary to keep the peace. But what Hammett has done in arguing the case for surveillance is set up a straw man. Again, there was and is no opposition to a police presence during the march – there was and is opposition to photographic surveillance of a peaceful, orderly and school monitored constitutionally legal gathering of students and adults exercising their civil rights when there was no criminal predicate to justify it.
Another straw man argument posed by the editorial’s writer or writers, ostensibly assisted by their “legal folks,” posits that “there is no ‘expectation of privacy’” for people gathering in public, or cameras on school buses or mounted in police patrol cars. Stationary cameras now commonly used in public areas or private businesses or in school busses, set up for the public’s protection is a different scenario altogether than photographic surveillance during free speech activity for the purpose of gathering intelligence. And the fact of the matter is the Sheriff’s Department officer was photographing adults as well as students. If this was not for the purpose of gathering intelligence then the question is – what was it being done for? This is the question that should have been asked in the newspaper’s editorial. Furthermore when asked why he was photographing the demonstrators, the officer, J. Cobert answered that he was doing it on his own volition. He later fessed up that Sgt. Shubel of the Sonoma Police Department, ordered him to do so. What the truth of this is has yet to be determined.
But The Sun’s fatuous screed was too busy dissing those adults who stood in solidarity with the Latino student’s protest for fair immigration reform, and mouthing stupid platitudes about people who still live in the 60s. If living in the 60s means fighting for our dwindling civil rights, standing up against illegal police procedures, and supporting the human rights of our Latino brothers and sisters then I’m guilty as charged. My fellow travelers and I will oppose illegal and immoral wars, unjust social persecution, and government interference in our right to dissent. That’s what we learned in the 60s in the struggle for civil rights, women’s rights, and student’s right,s and in opposition to another immoral and unnecessary war for dominance. How quickly we forget, and how terrible a price we pay for our amnesia.
Lockyer wrote the manual in order to issue guidelines for local law enforcement agencies, and sent it out to every police chief and sheriff in the state in 2003 in the form of a book titled, “Criminal Intelligence Systems: A California Perspective.” The question is: Did they read it and do they care? A 2005 survey taken by the ACLU indicates a resounding “no.” In its report titled, “The State of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of Political Activity in Northern and Central California,” it’s stated: “The survey revealed a profound lack of regulation and a disappointing level of familiarity with the Lockyer Manual.” It further states: “The vast majority of law enforcement agencies did not have policies regulating the circumstances under which officers may monitor or gather information on individuals engaged in political activity.”
Hopefully the Sonoma Police Department will adopt and implement local law enforcement regulations that will preserve constitutionally protected civil liberties, and that will highlight the need for increasingly threatened privacy protections. I can see no reason why the community and the law enforcement agency cannot create these guidelines in a timely and mutually respectful manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
