NorCal Progressive

Angelides/Westly

2006-05-25T21:23:00.000-07:00

The David Westly bus caravan came through Chico this week as the the race with Phil Angelides drew closer. Even as he stepped off the bus, Westly had to be asking himself:

Why are our Democratic women still undecided?

A new Public Policy Institute of California poll (get to a .PDF link here) showed Angelides pulling ahead of Westly 35 % to 32% after trailing in the most recent LA Times poll.

They're basically deadlocked with a couple of weeks to go to the June primary.

What was pretty amazing is the high number of undecideds, almost 33%, and the biggest bunch of the undecideds are women. The poll's authors seem to think women aren't sure of the type of leadership they want. Maybe so.

I was a little surprised Angelides had shown significant growth in his numbers since he had positioned himself to the left of the California electorate with his talk of tax increases.

I have to say I've been miffed by Westly's TV ads which have, in my opinion, a Stooges "here's a finger in your eye" quality to them. (in the interests of disclosure, I donated a little to Westly a while back).

Still, I want to be able to say I can support either candidate regardless of who wins the primary. Today, I can say that. I just hope neither campaign goes into a "first strike" mode which could result in mutual assured destruction that benefits Steroidsenegger in the general election.

--Drzal

Thin Edge of the Wedge

2006-05-16T15:13:00.000-07:00

The President went on TV last night to say he wasn’t militarizing the border with Mexico when everyone knows the government has been militarizing the border since Clinton. Bush is simply upping the stakes by rotating military forces in and out of the Border States for the next two years.

Or so he says.

The 9/11 Commission recommended a substantial increase in Border Patrol agents nearly three years ago. The commission said 10,000 more agents were needed to secure our borders. But Bush and the Republican Congress didn’t do much with border security in the 2004 budget. Neither did much with border security in the 2005 budget.

Now, it’s a crisis even though things aren’t appreciably different today than they were three years ago. What Bush and the Republicans have is a political crisis, and Bush is calling on the military to bail out him and the Republicans out.

I think it’s too little, too late.

Bush also called for a guest worker program to provide the business wing of his party with the cheap, exploitable labor it desires. Otherwise those folks would have to pay more to attract American workers.

Guest worker programs do not deter illegal immigration; in reality, it would cement in place existing incentives for immigrants to come here illegally.

If there is work, they will come. Try this hypothetical: take two equally qualified immigrant workers, both willing cross the border illegally. One gets to come in as a guest worker. The other is told to stay home because there are no more slots left in the program. Does anybody think that person will not try to come in illegally?

What bothers me most about this is that countries that use their militaries for law enforcement without question have a lack of respect for human rights.

We already know Bush values his presidential powers over our constitutional rights.

The border today; what “war” will we be fighting tomorrow that will require the deployment of military troops on our soil?

That’s the thin edge of the wedge.

--Drzal

The Decider

2006-05-14T10:09:00.000-07:00

O.K. Beatles fans. Sing along:

I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when Dick shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...

Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong

I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo

Baghdad city policeman sitting pretty little targets in a row
See how they die when the shrapnel flies see mothers cry
I'm Lying...I'm Ly-ing...I'm Lying...I'm Ly-ing

Yellow cake uranium, imaginary WMD's
Declassifying facts, exposing secret agents
Tax cuts for the wealthy leaving all the poor behind

CHORUS

Sitting in the White house garden talking to the Lord
My thoughts would be busy busy hatching If I only had a brain

CHORUS

By Paul Hipp

Thanks to http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

--Drzal

Herger's Class Warfare

2006-05-11T11:43:00.000-07:00

Herger and the Republicans are up to their old tricks again – a game of warfare against the middle class they’ve played since they’ve come into office. For Herger, that’s almost 20 years.

The right wingnuts voted “wealth over wages” in the House by extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, assets held by the wealthiest in America. Those assets will be taxed at 15 percent. Most wage earners, like a firefighter or police officer, will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (detailed here in a previous post).

The extension means thousands of dollars in savings for upper bracket earners – people who push real estate or paper wealth around – and maybe a tankful of gas for people making $50 -$70,000, which is most people.

Those who can afford taxes less pay more. Those who can afford taxes more pay less.

It will add $70 billion more to the deficit, and the Republicans will have to raise the national debt limit to almost $10 trillion. Try wrapping your head around that. You can bet the farm that Herger will be voting to raise the debt limit and borrow even more from China to cover the debt.

Defenders of this monstrosity will say things like you can’t pull up low wage earners by keeping down high wage earners. Complete crap.

If the tax burden, meaning the percentage of income paid to taxes, shifts to wages, then obviously there will be less disposable income for everyday working people.

Herger’s cynical idea is to make the burden so great working taxpayers will rebel against taxes and “agree” to large reductions of government.

It’s what they’ve been after all along.

I have to laugh everytime Herger goes on a district road show. All those supporters nodding their heads when he lambastes some Washington outrage, not bothering to notice the conservative knife being stuck in their backs.

--Drzal

Moussauoi

2006-05-04T14:05:00.000-07:00

Like a lot of people, I’m sure, I was surprised the Virginia jury didn’t sentence Moussauoi to death for his role – a very limited role, to be sure – in the 9/11 attacks. But when the thing dragged on, the writing seemed to be on the wall. Usually, a jury will give a day or two so a death verdict doesn’t look rushed. But the longer they go, the less likely they are to come back with a death sentence.

Anybody who reads this blog knows I oppose the death penalty. Life without possibility of parole ain’t a walk in the park either, and I hope he lives out the rest of his life very anonymously.

Making a martyr out of him isn’t real smart, though he and his supporters will claim he’s a political prisoner. Still he wanted to be a martyr, but he ain’t gonna get what he wants. That’s good.

I’ve also viewed death cases as window into the workings of our criminal justice system and how it reflects the values of this society. Often, the case is a reflection of us just as much as it is about the bad guy. And I’m talking about the worst of the bad guys.

One thing that sticks out in the Moussauoi case is that the Bush conservatives wanted to hand out the death penalty for lying. But the real bottom line is they wanted the death penalty for somebody who refused to incriminate himself during interrogation. That’s a slippery slope. You have the right against self-incrimination in this country. At least for now.

And, if the issue is lying that results in the loss of American life, then I can think of somebody else who should be held to account for his actions.

But the Moussaoui case was really a show trial. Virtually everyone from all viewpoints on the political spectrum admit he was a minor player. For the terrorists, he was an unreliable fringe player in the whole 9/11 tragedy.

You want a death penalty case? Put Kahlid Shiek Muhammad(spelling?), the mastermind of 9/11, on trial. He’s in the American gulag somewhere (I say “American” because an uncomfortably large number of people, by their silence, is endorsing an overseas secret prison system). Rather than put the 9/11 families through hell for a fringe actor, put the mastermind on trial.

Of course, he’s been tortured, and the Bush boys – not men – boys don’t want that coming out at trial. Nothing would be admitted into evidence anyway.

What a bright bunch of boys they are. I’d say they all should be forced to look themselves in the mirror. That would be their torture. But on second thought, I doubt there would be a reflection in the mirror.

What a sad bunch, from the shamed Oval Office on down.

--Drzal

Dem Good Idea

2006-04-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

There’s a pretty good idea going around Sacramento that would change the way California elects the President and Vice-President. It wouldn’t do away completely with the Electoral College. But it would require California’s electors, 55 in all, and the largest bloc in the country, to cast their votes for the Presidential candidate with the highest number of votes.

Which is the way it should be. Every other office in the country from Senator to dogcatcher goes to the guy with more votes than the other guy. Democracy. Simple.

Let’s face it. The Electoral College is whacked. Gore had a half-million more votes that Bush in 2000. Bush needed the Supreme Court to appoint him President. The last thing we want is judges appointing Presidents.

In all fairness, and I am that kind of guy, a change of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have made Kerry president, even though he lost the popular vote by 2.9-million votes.

I won’t go into every reason for this idea. One standout reason is it forces the candidates to campaign in a state like California.

You know, we are the gold standard for this country. Culturally, economically, lifestyle – all that stuff. We give the country more tax dollars than the country gives back to us. Californians account for 10 percent of the votes cast in a presidential election. How many times did Bush or Kerry campaign in California in the last month or two of the campaign?

Once or twice, maybe.

That’s because both campaigns knew Kerry had California in the bag. The entire game is played out in a dozen or so swing states – states that could go either way – mostly in the Midwest. If the President were elected by a national popular vote, candidates couldn’t afford to ignore California.

And we’d become less of an ATM for the campaigns.

In addition to California, the states of Louisiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Colorado are also considering legislation to make it happen.

It’s AB 2948, by Tom Umberg. It’s a good idea. Check it out.

--Drzal

The Internet

2006-04-26T13:08:00.000-07:00

Seems like Republican Congresscritters are pushing a bill that would forever change the way you use the Internet. The bill would do away with a concept called "Net Neutrality." Save the Internet explains:

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

One way of thinking about this is that cable and telephone giants want to put toll boots at the on-ramps to the Internet. You might pay more to get on, or be directed to the slow lane, or if you want to go to a competitor of the guy in the toll booth, you might get turned back.

Another group working on the issue is publicknowledge.org

This is a serious threat.

--Drzal

Wal-Mart Chokehold on Chico

2006-04-24T21:59:00.000-07:00

Word is environmental review of two – not one – two Wal-Mart supercenters for Chico is nearing completion at City Hall, which means the issue will soon explode in full view of the community. As I understand it, Wal-Mart wants to convert the Forest Avenue “box” into a supercenter, and build a second supercenter somewhere near Garner Lane and Highway 99.

I think that’s less than 10 miles up the freeway.

The only real difference between the current Wal-Mart and a Wal-Mart Supercenter is the latter has wider aisles and a grocery.

Looks to me like Wal-Mart thinks it needs two of these behemoths to take out the Holiday Markets, Wincos, Safeways, Albertsons and other grocery chains that provide their workers from Chico and Butte County far better pay and benefits than Wal-Mart will ever provide theirs. I believe some of the mentioned grocery chains are unionized, but I don’t know which ones and to what extent.

Yeah, these are your friends and neighbors this predator is going after.

The real truth about Wal-Mart and the retail sprawl it creates is that Wal-Mart represents economic displacement, not economic development. When a Wal-Mart comes to town, the net effect is the replacement of good quality jobs with low quality jobs, inefficient land-use, and decreases investment established downtown commercial areas. In addition, the projects often forces costly infrastructure development at the edge of towns, and lowers residential and commercial property values.

Wal-Mart has turned traditional American economics on its head, and has abused its power to the detriment of workers and communities.

"Wal-Mart has reversed a hundred-year history that had the retailer dependent on the manufacturer," explains Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Now the retailer is the center, the power, and the manufacturer becomes the serf, the vassal, the underling who has to do the bidding of the retailer. That's a new thing." –from Frontline: “Is Wal-Mart Good for America?”

The Los Angeles Times, in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series a few years ago, described how Wal-Mart forced a fan maker in Chicago to outsource jobs to China. The company put tremendous pressure on the fan manufacturer to lower costs. He cut benefits, lowered pay, begged suppliers to lower the cost of components. When it wasn’t enough, the fan maker shipped jobs to China. Either that, or fold up. Read about the entire episode here.

Is Wal-Mart invincible? Hardly. Communities from Eureka, California to Middletown, Rhode Island and from Gainsville, Florida to Mesa, Arizona have stopped Wal-Mart projects in their communities. Across the country, some 277 Wal-Mart projects have been blocked.

Activists who took a stand for their community stopped those stores. A group is already forming in Chico. It is Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy (CARE). Learn more about care by sending an e-mail to info@chicocares.org CARE does not oppose the current Wal-Mart in Chico, but opposes the two proposed supercenters.

Other grassroots groups might also come together to oppose the supercenters. The necessary ingredients for beating a big box like Wal-Mart are a broad-based coalition; hiring of land use experts; constant visibility in the media and in the community; and raising money to hire the experts. More about organizing can be found at an excellent anti-retail sprawl website, Sprawl-Busters.

Shop at Wal-Mart, and you are importing cheap labor, just the same as if you went to Mexico or South America and recruited an illegal immigrant to mow your lawn for you. Shop at Wal-Mart, and you are helping to kill an American job, somewhere.

--Drzal

Pat Tillman

2006-04-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the death of solider Pat Tillman, the pro football player who left the Arizona NFL team to join the military in the fight against terrorists based in Afghanistan.

You probably don’t know that the Pentagon has now launched its fourth “official” investigation into Tillman’s death.

When Tillman died, the Pentagon concocted a phony story about the Army Ranger having died in a firefight with the Taliban enemy. They awarded Tillman the Silver Star.

Only later, after some investigative journalism, did the Pentagon begin to tell the truth: Tillman was killed by “friendly fire.”

Tillman was blown to pieces by .50-caliber rounds fired by his fellow Army Rangers. When was killed, Tillman was on a canyon wall, screaming his name, waving his arms, and setting off smoke grenades to signal he was an American soldier.

So, a terrible, tragic accident. And terrible, tragic accidents do happen in a war zone.

So, why did the Rangers burn his blood-soaked uniform and body armor, and destroy other evidence?

Tillman’s father, Patrick, told the New York Times the Pentagon covered it up because they had blown up “their poster boy.”

In other words, the Tillman story of leaving a lucrative football career to fight for his country was more valuable for recruitment purposes and maintaining public support for the war than honoring his sacrifice with the truth.

Said Mary Tillman, “The fact that he was the ultimate team player and watched his own men kill him is heartbreaking and tragic. The fact they lied about it afterwards is disgusting.”

The Tillman’s are divorced, and shun the publicity the story has generated. They kept quiet for months believing that was the honorable thing to do. They’ve kept their anger and agony to themselves.

I told a friend of mine, a WW II veteran I admire and respect, about the Tillman case. He said it was nothing compared to the cover-up of military accidents that claimed the lives of many more servicemen than Pat Tillman. He was not swayed by my argument that the Pentagon’s conduct was reprehensible.

Regardless, the fourth official investigation is underway, and my friend agreed with me on one point, somebody below the top echelon of the Pentagon will take the fall. The chickenhawks at the top will come away unscathed.

--Drzal

Herger's Take on Immigration

2006-04-20T12:44:00.000-07:00

Rep. Wally Herger talked to the Enterprise-Record about immigration legislation Monday. The article was pretty standard fare for the E-R, with its chronic hands-off treatment of the Congressman. Larry Mitchell’s article went pretty easy on Herger, but that’s been SOP for years. What was noteworthy was what wasn’t discussed in the article.

Let me fill in a few of the blanks.

There was no mention of the mass of people involved in the immigration debate, which is as complex as it is heated. There’s something like 12 million people that are going to be affected by what, if anything, comes out of Washington.

The first thing that’s going to change is the provision in the House bill making a person here illegally a felon. That’s coming outta’ the House bill. Herger knows it, but he didn’t go there. And, apparently, Larry didn’t ask.

Now, Herger said the House bill he voted for contained “somewhat tougher” restrictions than he wanted, including, I presume, the felon provision. I wished Larry had asked Herger how he was going to track down those 12 million felons, or where he would find the billions of dollars required for such a program.

Oh, the felon idea was ridiculous all right, but Herger and the Republicans had a chance to stoke their base. Turn up the fire on this thing. Get people hot and mad. Get a little more ill will directed at Latino immigrants, legal or not.

And that’s what they did.

The article also touched on Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and Herger making some vague statement about Reid allowing the Senate bill to move forward. I covered this in another post on immigration, but it was the Republicans that blocked the bill because they couldn’t get behind a deal negotiated by Reid and Frist, the Republican leader.

Less than six hours after going before the news cameras to announce a deal had been struck, Frist began backtracking. He wanted to allow up to 100 votes on amendments that would scuttle the deal he had just reached with Reid.

Talk about a double-dealer.

Even worse, Republicans are now running ads on Spanish radio and TV accusing Reid and House Democrats of pushing the felon provision. This is really amazing.

House Republicans voted up the bill to make being in this country illegally a felony. (Mitchell correctly reports being illegal now results in a civil deportation action.) Herger was there for the team. Democrats voted against it because they didn’t want to make being an illegal alien a crime.

Later, Republicans offered an amendment to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. Democrats voted against the amendment because they are against making being an illegal alien a crime. So the original Republican felony provision stayed in.

Voila! Democrats who refused to make criminals out of illegal residents are responsible for the felony provision.

This is really amazing, bald-faced lying.

Republicans were supposed to go out during this break (when are they not on break?) and blame Reid and the Democrats for the felon controversy, but there was none of that in Mitchell’s article.

Oh, I bet Herger tried, but Mitchell left it out, which is why he’s a good reporter.

--Drzal

The Generals

2006-04-19T18:33:00.000-07:00

Well, the retired generals have a real anti-Jones for Donald Rumsfeld. Could it be the generals, soon after retiring, joined the left-wing blogosphere that has been so (rightly) critical of Bush?

Don’t think so. It is truly extraordinary that so many generals with experience in Iraq have concluded the national security credentials of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd are bogus. These generals, by speaking out, are putting national security first.

Bush, as we know, puts his political security ahead of our national security.

The general’s criticism and call for Rumsfeld’s resignation started after learning some of their current brethren, who can’t – and shouldn’t – speak out ,think Bush and his insiders have a “messianic” view of the Middle East. The current military brass wanted the nuclear strike option removed from the war contingency plans for Iran. Bush refused to take it out.

Bush calls it “wild speculation,” but he hasn’t said “no” to the nuke option, or disputed the accuracy of the reporting soon to be released in The New Yorker, has he? Sy Hersh quoted insiders as saying Bush believes only he can solve the Iran problem and only he has the courage to do it.

Delusions of grandeur. That’s scary stuff.

I think the retired generals think Rumsfeld is just neo-nutty enough to pop a mushroom cloud over Iran. Bush has an evangelical-bent that may or may not include a thirst for Armageddon. If Rumsfeld told him to do it, well, I believe he is capable of anything.

Bush: "I hear the voices. I read the newspapers.“I’m the decider. And I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain the secretary of defense.”

That’s reassuring.

The generals are right to see if they can get rid of Rumsfeld. I’d feel a lot safer if Bush was the one signing a letter of resignation.

Bush: "I hear the voices."

We know you do.

--Drzal

California Minimum Wage

2006-04-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

Even Oprah is on the side of an increase in the minimum wage. That woman can move mountains, so she recently devoted an entire show to the mimimum wage issue.

In California, the minimum wage($6.75/hr.)issue is back after the Governor vetoed an earlier Democratic bill to raise the state minimum wage $1 to $7.75/hr. Remember that.

Democrats have a bill to raise the minimum wage to .50 cents now, .50 a little later, and make future increases automatic by tieing the wage to inflation. So, all that’s on the table is the $1 increase Schwarzengeer vetoed last fall, plus the indexing.

It is the indexing that has Schwarzenegger threatening to veto the bill. A lot of hand-wring is going on in Republican circles, including over on the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial page. They’re accusing Democrats of playing politics by adding indexing to the legislative stew.

I think the Democrats were correct to add indexing. I don’t see why they should give Schwarzenegger a pass when he had a chance to approve the same wage hike WITHOUT indexing. Democrats are right to up the ante.

Schwarzenegger didn’t care about minimum wage earners when he vetoed the increase. He didn't need to: His $50-million special election was on the horizon; his roadmap to reelection had been drawn. But the special election boondoggle blew up in his face, so he needs all the help he can get. Now, he’s worried about minimum wage workers.

Democrats might be playing politics. Republicans are playing cynical politics.

California’s minimum wage is an embarrassing travesty.

California’s minimum wage is two to three times below the hourly wage required to live a modest lifestyle. And, when the mythmakers say, “that’s all right, only part-time high school students are being paid minimum wage,” don’t believe it.

In fact, California’s low-wage workers are predominately adults working full time. In 2003, more than six out of ten California workers earning within one dollar per hour of the state’s minimum wage were age 25 and older, while only one out of six were teens.

My source for these numbers are the California Budget Project. You can read their reports here and here.

CBP found California’s median income to be $15.00/hr. To maintain a modest, no-frills lifestyle, a family with two parents and two children, where one parent works, had better be earning $24.60/hr. For a single parent with two children, the gap between the median and required wage($25.96/hr) is even greater.

In the Sacramento Valley region, single parent families and two parent families (with one working parent) had better be earning around $20.00/hr. just to maintain a basic family budget.

These hourly pay scenarios are for the basic expenses like food, housing and transportation, and allow little to no room for “extras” such as college savings, vacations, or emergencies.

So, when we talk about a minimum wage, remember that is doesn’t even come close to a living wage. There are folks that work two, three minimum wage jobs – and have no health insurance. If employers don’t pay a decent, living wage, then people are more likely to end up on some form of government assistance. Or in emergency rooms. Wal-Mart doesn’t provide health benefits to a lot of their employees Their corporate policy is to deny health benefits, thus shifting their workers into state medical insurance programs for the indigent.

Republicans often warn that raising the minimum wage will force small businesses to close their doors; in effect, raising the minimum wage is a job killer. But when a Wal-Mart comes in and the locally-owned supermarket goes out of business; or the hardware store; or the vacuum cleaner shop; or the paint store; the Republicans never say a peep about the loss of those jobs.

There’s a real disconnect there.

In fact, paying a living wage is good for local communities. Workers will have more purchasing power and circulate more dollars in the local economy, benefiting all small business. Businesses then can re-invest and expand. This is a good thing for the community.

Sometimes we hear from conservatives that employers deserve tax breaks and other adulation because they provide jobs. I think the employer’s reward for providing a job is the profit he/she realizes from the difference between what an employee is compenstated and the actual value of the work performed. Consider also, that business could not operate if not for the infrastructure – roads, bridges, airports, the post office – paid for by employees with their tax dollars. Shouldn’t business recognize this contribution to society by paying taxpaying employees a decent, living wage?

Many businesses large and small do, in fact, take care of their employees in a decent and honorable way, and they should be commended. I do. I try to shop at their businesses.

But some don’t, and threaten to go out of business, if the minimum wage is increased. (We’re not even talking living wage here).

Perhaps the bottom line should be this: if a business can’t do right by the workers that makes their business possible, maybe they shouldn’t be in business in the first place. Maybe we shouldn’t mourn their passing.

Just maybe employers who understand the value of good workers, honorably paid and well treated, will move in to fill the void.

And our communities will be better for it.

--Drzal

Westly Leads Angelides

2006-04-17T13:03:00.000-07:00

The latest Field Poll(pdf) had a fairly significant “pucker” factor for Phil Angelides, the Democratic establishment’s favorite son for Governor. Angelides was locked in a fairly tight primary contest with Steve Westly, the state controller who wants the right to challenger Mr. Special Election in November.

Well, it ain’t fairly tight now: Westly has an 11 point edge over Angelides. That’s not huge and there’s still six weeks to go, but Angelides had to be expecting to be looking down at Westly, not looking up.

The wind is at Westly’s back.

I’ve been most interested in knowing the two Democrats haven’t beating up on each other. A brawl could hurt our chances of taking out the very vulnerable Mr. Special Election. I hope Westly and Angelides don’t go negative, and if one or the other does, I plan to call that person out.FWIW.

I haven’t seen Westly on the stump. (I missed a chance to see him Chico, though I donated to his campaign).

I did hear Angelides on Air America when Al Franken was in Sacramento, I think it was.

I wasn’t impressed with what I heard. Overall, his performance had a Bob “steamroll anything and everything in my way” Mulholland feel to it, which shouldn’t surprise since Angelides and Mulholland are good friends. Angiledes’ passion seemed forced. On top of that, Angiledes was refusing to say if he would support the Democratic nominee and was doing stuff like refusing to mention Westly by name. Dumb stuff.

So, I thought Angelides was having a bad day, and maybe that’s all it was.

Then again, if polls are to be believed, maybe not.

--Drzal

Dem Pesky Earmarks

2006-04-14T16:50:00.000-07:00

Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its 2006 Congressional Pig Book. According to CAGW, Congress critters snuck some $29 billion in subterranean spending called, in D.C.-speak, “earmarks.” Most people know them as pork barrel spending. Earmarks are what got Duke Cunningham, the corrupt Congressman from down south, into trouble. He was taking bribes to stick these spending items into, mostly defense contracts, into law. The “Dukester” does have a few years to think about how wrong it was to do that.

These earmarks are a little different than the transportation pork barrel projects funded with the 18-cent federal gasoline tax. Herger, Doolittle, et al voted to send millions of dollars in taxes you paid on a gallon of gasoline off to other states. Something on the order of $250 million, just a little more than was needed to build a bridge in Alaska to an island inhabited by 50 people. Boxer and Feinstein abstained when it came time to vote on the transportation pork barrel bill. Even that project was too much for those two wild, overspending, fiscally irresponsible Democrats. Which brings me to Feinstein.

CAGW says Feinstein got $56 million in dubious spending inserted into the budget. Here’s the list:

**$11,650,000 for construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem;
**$10,000,000 for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Project;
**$7,000,000 for the UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine;
**$3,000,000 for the American River Watershed;
**$3,000,000 for the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project;
**$2,900,000 for regional wetlands in Lake Tahoe;
**$1,440,000 for the San Francisco Bay Long-Term Management Study;
**$1,250,000 for the Long Beach Desalination Project;
**$1,000,000 for the Sacramento River Division Study;
**$1,000,000 for a water reclamation project in Orange County;
**$500,000 for the Arnold Palmer Prostate Center;
**$400,000 for the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project;
**$300,000 for Surfside-Sunset and Newport beaches

Feinstein had told reporters, “The problem with earmarks is they’re put in the dark of night and they are unknown. I recognize that earmarks have been abused.”

Well, she knows what she’s talking about.

Now, some people would say a lot of that spending is justified. It would be wrong to call it wasteful spending because one person’s wasteful spending is another person’s worthy spending. You also know that, if Feinstein didn’t grab up the money, somebody else would have. And, for gosh sakes, California already donates more money to the government than is returned to the state. (They call us a “donor” state. I think we’re nuts for going along with it.)

There, now I’m defending an essentially corrupt, unprincipled practice that wastes tens of millions of taxpayer’s dollars year in and year out in the nation’s Capitol.

What I really want to know is this:

What the heck is the Sacramento River Division Study?

--Drzal

God's Party

2006-04-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

I’ve been a big fan of Kevin Phillips for a long time, even going back to the days when he did commentary on a regular basis on National Public Radio. Mr. Phillips, a long-time Republican, just called it like he saw it, and he didn’t care if pricked the skin of the Democrats or the Republicans.

Phillips isn’t on NPR anymore. Phillips was too critical of Republicans, so NPR doesn’t air his commentaries anymore. But he is out with a new book “American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.” I haven’t read it yet. But the Portland Oregonian gave Phillips half of an editorial page for a lengthy piece on the new conservative dynamo or scourge, depending on where you sit. Here’s a link to the commentary.

From where I sit, the stuff Phillips is writing about made me pucker up.

Phillips writes that a confluence of religious fundamentalism, oil and national security concerns and massive debt are driving today’s Republican Party. Phillips thinks the country is “approaching” theocracy because the elected leader believes himself to speak for the Almighty; the ruling political party, in control of all three branches of government (four branches, if you count the media), first and foremost represents religious true believers; and the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion.

I also was intrigued by the many millions of religious voters who think Armageddon is near, and would even welcome a conflagration in the Mideast where, according to biblical interpretations, is where the “end-times” will occur.

I’d like to quote this passage because it really caught my eye:

The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington’s multiple deceptions, and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies – the GOP coalition is not likely to turn back – is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grassroots.

I agree with Phillips. I don’t think the Republican Party – God’s Party? - is turning back either. The question is: how far to the right does it want to go, and how far it will go to achieve its aims.

Personally, I ain’t interested in finding out.

Regardless, the book should be one heck ‘uva read.

--Drzal

Leaks and Lies

2006-04-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

Uh-oh.

Looks like the President lied again. Bush lies seem to come out daily these days. The latest is the Washington Post’s report of April 12th which describes an intelligence report on the two mobile trailers found soon after the fall of Baghdad. Why, those trailers were proof of a WMD biological weapons program, Ari Fleisher told the Washington lapdog corps. Bush himself declared on May 29: “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s some declaration considering the field report of the government fact finders was transmitted to Washington on May 27.

They determined the trailers produced helium or hydrogen for balloons. However, it’s more scary when you scream “anthrax” or “botulism” from the White House lectern. Fleisher eventually retracted, but Bush and his crowd continued to lie about the trailers for more than a year.

Earlier this week, Bush went to Johns Hopkins to claim the “key judgments” extracted from a national security document and leaked by Scooter Libby to Judith Miller contained “the truth.” No, he declassified the document so he could spread information widely disputed in the government for the sole purpose of undermining an Administration critic, Joe Wilson. Very little of what was given to that shill, Miller, was “the truth.” (Miller was being used, and if she did it willingly, that raises serious questions about her and the New Pravda Times.)

By the way, whose idea was it to put stumblin, bumblin’ Bush in front of a group of Johns Hopkins international studies students who know more about foreign policy than he does?

Finally, it is pathetic that the President of the United States would put his political fortunes ahead of the national security of the country. I don’t care if it was legal or not. When the press secretary releases it to the press corps, that’s an authorized disclosure. When you give it to a reporter, on the sly, it’s a leak.

Patrick Fitzgerald had a few interesting remarks in his court filing:

Fitzgerald asserts there was “a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House,” to undermine Wilson.

Fitzgerald talks not of an effort (by leaking) to level with the American people but of “a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Wilson.”

Fitzgerald concludes, “It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to punish Wilson.”

Fitzgerald knows who outed Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, who worked in the identity-protected Office of the Directorate at CIA, to right wing hack and zombie movie extra Robert Novak, who sold out her and Brewster Jennings, a CIA front company working on nuclear counter-proliferatiion issues. Might be nice to have them working on that Iran situation right now, wouldn’t it?

Will Fitzgerald prosecute the leaker? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Now, for a change, it’s time for straight talk from a Bush. But it has to come from the old man himself:

“Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” - George H. W. Bush speaking at a dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence

How delicious the irony would be if it were not so completely overshadowed by the disgrace this intellectually and morally inferior President and Administration has brought on our country, our democracy, and our Constitution.

--Drzal

Butte County Supertroika?

2006-04-11T18:46:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts about the contest for the east Chico seat on the Butte County Board of Supervisors…….

I’ve been wondering what impact Chuck Kutz will have on the race. Clearly, he’s not part of the county Republican establishment or he wouldn’t be in the race. Mary Andrews is Republican establishment, and when the establishment told her to get lost, she got lost.

What few votes Kutz will draw will come at the expense of Steve Bertagna, the erstwhile Chico councilman who passed on a run for the seat when it really counted. Certainly, Kutz isn’t the wildcard TV weatherman Anthony Watts was. Celebrity is a weird factor, and Watts played it well for a seat on the Chico School Board. Anthony is a nice, well-intentioned guy – politics are wrong, of course – who realized he had over reached.

Maureen Kirk had to smile when Watts dropped out and Bertagna dropped in. Given that weird celebrity thing, I’m sure she would rather run against Bertagna. In a comparison of their records and personalities, Kirk wins hands down. Kirk is not the polarizing figure Bertagna is.

I understand Kirk also picked up the endorsement of Mary Ann Houx, the outgoing supervisor from the 3rd District. Houx dispatched Bertagna four years ago when he challenged her reign of incumbency. It’s not likely Houx forgot that. Kirk is plenty smart enough to find out from Houx before declaring her candidacy if Houx would support her. So, Kirk’s campaign gets a nice boost from Houx because Bertagna had the audacity to challenge Houx. Either that, or the Girls Rule thing is still going around.

You have to question Bertagna’s commitment to this thing. He was already giving indications he was burned out on Chico city politics. Now, he wants to join political head-case that is Butte County government? It’s also unusual for somebody to run again for a seat he/she had just lost. Nobody likes a two-time loser. I don’t think he’s in it for the money, though the big pay raise the Supes gave themselves probably helped him change his mind.

Maybe, just maybe, Bertagna said he would run if the Board pushed through a big pay raise. You know, to make it worth his time.

Nah.

Bertagna got in because the county Republicans needed a candidate. For whatever reason, Watts was tanking, and the Republicans needed somebody to run against Kirk. So they talked Bertagna into it, maybe promising him a spot in line when term limits catch up to Keene. And, Bertagna did them a solid by getting in the race just before the deadline.

So, you wonder about Bertagna’s commitment. I also wonder about his independence. Will Bertagna go to Oroville and form a three supervisor troika with Josiassen and Yamiguchi? Those two teamed with Bob Beeler(no longer on the board) and set in motion a cabal that decimated the planning department, let the Sheriff’s Office wither, ruined the county’s reputation, and tried to run Jane Dolan out of her safe, cushy district. Fat chance of that.

Josiassen, Yamiguchi and Bertagna are all cogs in the local Republican machine, such as it is. If the club can pressure Bertagna into running, can the club pressure Bertagna into forming a new majority triumvirate with the Deadly Duo?

We can say this:

Bertagna may or may not aspire to form a majority troika with Josiassen and Yamguchi.

We KNOW Kirk will never sell out her independence.

--Drzal

Immigration, One More Time

2006-04-10T13:16:00.000-07:00

The immigration debate probably boils down to a melding of a repulsive bill with a repugnant bill.

The House bill, voted up in December of last year, makes illegal immigrants felons. Sure, Herger and Doolittle voted for it. Lungren even sponsored it. Never mind that 70 percent of them have been here more than five years, pay taxes, obey the law, and have American-born children who are American citizens.

The Senate bill creates three classes of illegal immigrants. Now the U.S. Senate is doling out rights based on a phony scale of who’s been here longest. Good thing these folks weren’t around when yours and mine ancestors came to this country.

Just a quick word about the Bush hooey that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, is blocking the bill. Reid and Frist agreed to a compromise. Reid had the Democrats lined up. Frist didn’t have the full support of the Republicans, who are badly divided on the issue. So, Frist wants to poison the deal with a bunch of amendments that would force Democrats to abandon the compromise, and allow Republicans to claim Democrats are against immigration reform. That’s politics for you. I hope the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial page writer so concerned about Democrats playing politics with the state minimum wage is paying attention.

The Chico News & Review had an excellent editorial on immigration last week. Read it here. It dissected the House wingnut’s desire for a “Berlin” wall on the border to keep’em out.

A draconian bill passed by the House would add hundreds of miles of fencing to the border, at huge costs, despite evidence that such barriers are more effective at keeping illegals in this country once they've arrived than keeping them out. It would also turn being here illegally and providing humanitarian aid to illegals into felony crimes.

The editorial continued:

Yes, we need to exercise greater control over our borders. But the best way to do that is to make it harder for employers to hire workers who lack documentation. Fake ID cards are too easy to make, and employers are too willing to accept them. Until this situation is changed, poor people from Mexico and points south will continue to risk their lives in search of greater opportunity. All the fences in the world won't stop them.

No, fences won’t stop them, but fences will become a huge black mark on what this country stands for.

The tough medicine required to solve this seemingly intractable problem is raising wages so Americans will do the jobs illegals currently perform, and cracking down on employers who hire illegals, both of which will increase costs to consumers. That’s the price of solving this crisis. That’s the tough medicine.

I don’t see anything that suggests the country is even close to taking it.

--Drzal

Supposed Rights

2006-04-06T14:07:00.000-07:00

Wally Herger barnstormed the district last week. He held open forums in the major towns of Northern California, but managed to overlook Chico. It was Herger’s version of hand-selecting his audience. Skipping Chico, maybe he thought the bloggers weren’t friendly enough.

The town hall-style meetings coincided with the release of his Spring Newsletter. You know, the one that has those baloney polls. They always contain questions worded to elicit the response that suits Herger’s right-wing agenda.

Here’s a good one:

Do you believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should continue its current program of monitoring international communications between suspected terrorists abroad and individuals in the United States?

Well, duh. Of course, we want the NSA monitoring international calls. I really don't care who's call they monitor overseas as long as there's a legitimate reason for it. It’s the monitoring of people in the U.S. WITHOUT A WARRANT as required by federal law that is the issue. Bush thinks he can monitor anyone he wants for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. Without national security court (FISA) review, the monitoring of Americans is being hidden under a shroud of secrecy. That’s exactly what Herger and the extreme right wing want.

That is why I believe it is entirely appropriate and wise to continue the NSA surveillance program. To disrupt possible threats, we must be able to monitor the international communications of all suspected terrorists. Only Americans who are talking to suspected terrorists need be concerned about the NSA monitoring their calls.

Now, he’s being dishonest. At least 5,000 Americans have been subjected to warrantless spying, including the Quakers, other religious organizations, peace groups and groups opposed to the war. Where are the arrests of these terrorist sympathizers or enablers? Is Al-Quada actually stupid enough to talk to all of these people over the telephone?

The president is not above the law, and safeguarding the constitutional rights of Americans shouldn’t be an afterthought during war.

Oh yeah? Too bad that doesn’t square with what Herger recently told the Redding Record-Searchlight.

"I am very alarmed with what I might see happen in the interest of people’s supposed rights," he said. "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."

As I wrote in this post, Herger sees your rights as "supposed" rights. That’s troubling enough, but then he says, "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."
So, any American mistakenly named a “suspect” under Bush’s eavesdropping program wouldn’t have any rights. Can it happen? Can someone running the spy program make a mistake and brand an innocent American a suspected terrorist? You bet.

Take the case of loyal American Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon attorney wrongly accused of participating in the terrorist bombing of a train station in Spain. The FBI determined a fingerprint recovered from a bag of detonators matched Mayfield’s fingerprint. The FBI entered his house, conducted a "sneek and peek" of his office and computer, followed him, and eventually took him into custody. In the meantime, Spanish authorities were telling the FBI they didn’t think the fingerprint was Mayfield's.

Yet, the FBI continued to insist the fingerprint was Mayfield's, and kept him in custody. As little as month before his release, the FBI was insisting they were right. Later, they admitted they were wrong and apologized to Mayfield. The Justice Department inspector general's full report on the Brandon Mayfield case can be found at www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

The point in all this is that Mayfield was very lucky another government was involved in the case. It was the Spaniards that convinced the FBI the fingerprint belonged to an Algerian terrorist. Otherwise, the FBI would still be clinging to its mistaken fingerprint match and Mayfield would still be in jail.

And, if Herger was to have his way, Mayfield would have no recourse to the courts to attempt to prove the fingerprint was not his. Mayfield would remain wrongly imprisoned, and that would be fine with Herger.

Let me repeat what Herger said: "A suspected terrorist doesn't have rights."

In my opinion, Herger needs to review the oath of office he took years ago, and he needs to clear his head of the fervor clouding his head, because as it stands now, his brand of right wing extremism is a danger to American freedoms,the U.S. Constitution, and innocent Americans.

--Drzal

Bill Falzett on Air America Radio

2006-04-05T16:26:00.000-07:00

"The voters of this district aren't sure who is in control of our government. I don’t believe they are Republicans." - Yuba City Democratic challenger Bill Falzett on Air America Radio

Indeed. Certainly not Republicans in the traditional American sense.

Fighting Dem Bill Falzett of Yuba City appeared on Air America radio April 4 with Majority Report host Sam Sedor and Markos, proprietor of the DailyKos, the most visited blog on the Internet.

Kos has been introducing Fighting Dems to a national audience for a couple months. Fighting Dems are the now more than 50 men and women military veterans running as Democrats in the fall Senate and Congressional election.

Falzett, who served in the U.S. Air Force and whose youngest son served in Iraq, should easily win the Democratic primary for the right to challenge Rep. Wally Herger in the general election.

They asked a lot of questions, and they talked fast. I took notes as best I could. Falzett handled himself well for a guy talking for the first time to a national audience. He was assured, concise and clear. Best of all, he talked like you and me. It wasn't some politic-babble politicans hone to a "T" after 20 years in office.

Sedor asked Falzett why he is a Democrat:

Bill said he grew up on the tough streets of El Paso, Texas. Realized he had choices available to him. Joined the military in the late 50’s –early 60’s. Went to college and became a physcotherapist. "Choices were important to me. Democrats love choices. Welcome choices. Republicans don’t like choices."

Kos asked Bill to describe CD-2 of Northern California:

Bill says the district is the 10 counties in the central part of Northern California, following generally the I-5 corridor. It’s a rural farming and recreational district. The district has the highest unemployment and the lowest family income of any district in the state. About 86% of the families in the district have incomes of less than $50,000. "What I hear often is how people are upset with the incumbent who votes for the Bush-Cheney line and doesn’t do much for the district."

Bill supports single payer health insurance. "People are very worried about their health care." Insurance companies have multiplied greatly. They now tell him how to treat his patients.

Sedor asked Falzett for his thoughts on the war:

Bill said people in the district are mixed on the war in Iraq. Many think it’s the wrong place, wrong time. His youngest son joined the military before the war. "I really started sweating when the war started."

"We just can’t go in and impose our will on someone," Falzett continued. "We can’t cut and run, but we can’t stay on this course either. The failure is in diplomacy and administration."

Falzett said gun control is a big issue in the district. "People are told Democrats are going to take your guns away. Well, we’re not. There’s the Consitution. They use a lot of wedge issues."

Abortion is another wedge issue. Republicans have effectively convinced their supporters to vote those issues and ignore issues such as exporting jobs overseas and warfare on the middle and lower classes.

Bill said he needs to tap into a tremendous grassroots to help offset a huge funding disadvantage. "There’s a whole bunch of Democrats in the district. I have to get them out of the weeds."

And that really is the right approach. Step 1 is to turn out Democratic voters, many of whom have thrown up their hands and given up, believing a Democrat can’t win in Northern California. Which is what the Republicans have worked hard to get them to believe. Republican Kool-Aid.

Step 2 is to turn out Republican moderates who are as disgusted with this Republican Party as the Democrats are. The district isn’t close to as extreme as Wally Herger is, but moderate Republicans always fall into line and vote for the right-winger that comes out of the primary.

Bill Falzett gives them a reason not to.

--Drzal

No Further DeLay

2006-04-04T17:30:00.000-07:00

They came in with the song of the siren that so many good, decent, hardworking Republicans cannot get out of their heads to this day.

They came into power ’94 promising to reform government. They came in after figuratively tying former Democratic Leader Jim Wright to a tree and skinning him alive over a $15-$20,000 book deal.

Today, the most corrupt, amoral, evil and diabolical politician in a generation is gone.

One down.

Many more to come.

--Drzal

Censure

2006-04-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

UPDATE 4/1/06:

Feinstein a no-show for the Judicary Committee hearing. Oh, but she was right there when it was time to censure Clinton.

--------

The U.S. Constitution states, “He (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” I didn’t see anything in there about “if he thinks they’re a good idea.”

But Bush sees that in there. Or imagines it. So does his supporters.

After a year of legislative battle over renewing the Patriot Act, Congress included a provision that requires the President to regularly report to Congress about his use of the powers granted by the Patriot Act.

Signing the law, Bush said it was legislation vital to winning the war on terror. Ah…there are those magic words…”The War on Terror”. Like the War on Drugs, the War that never ends.

As the Boston Globe reports, Bush sees himself exempt from the law. Bush issued a signing statement saying he would ignore the notification requirement just approved by Congress “if they would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”

The signing statement was a little reminder to Congress about who’s boss. When Bush couldn’t stop Congress from banning torture, he said that law didn’t apply to him.

John Dean, the Nixon attorney that helped blow the door open on Watergate, told the committee said Bush’s violations of law has gone beyond Nixon’s transgressions. Remember, Nixon was a war president too.

Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein told the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush is claiming for himself unlimited world wide powers since the “War on Terror” can happen anywhere, at anytime, to anyone.

It’s not a stretch to think Bush may next claim the power to order the killing of an American citizen in the dead of night. All that needs to be said is “War on Terror,” and it would matter not one whit if he were right or wrong in ordering the killing.

What other laws will he ignore? What other laws will he change to his liking?

Just who does he think he is?

What kind of country have we become?

A country with an on-going constitutional crisis, and a country that must censure this rogue President.

--Drzal

Real Security

2006-03-30T17:32:00.000-08:00

The Democrats have rolled out their platform for national security. Read it at www.democrats.org

It talks in depth about protecting America through cargo inspection, securing chemical and nuclear power plants, and finding and corralling material that could be used for a dirty bomb. The Democrats promise to go after bin Laden, find the SOB who masterminded the murder of three thousand of our countrymen and women, and kill him.

A long time ago, my cousin returned from Vietnam, and I asked him why we couldn’t win the war. He said you don’t kill a snake by cutting off its tail.

You want to start fighting terrorism? Start by cutting the head off the snake. Bush, on the other hand, has been breeding snakes by the thousands by creating a terrorist swamp in Iraq. The terrorists weren’t there before the invasion. They’re there now.

The Democratic plan follows the Murtha plan, which calls for strategic redeployment. Though I would prefer withdrawal sooner than later, the Real Security plan is far superior to the Republican’s strategy of throwing more lives and money into a quagmire of their own making, and a quagmire from which they’ll never emerge victorious.

As Democratic leader Harry Reid said, the Bush policy has been flawed and incompetently executed from the start.

The Democratic Real Security plan gives the country a chance to get back on track in foreign policy.

2006-03-29T18:09:00.000-08:00

I've been tuning in and reading about the immigration debate this week, trying to make sense of the issue, and come to a position on this thing.

The puppy is complicated.

If you've been following the debate, you already know that. Seems to me that people are coming at the issue six different ways, depending on the outcome they wish to see. Everytime I think I've come to a position on some part of the issue, a powerful counter-arguement comes up.

It all adds up to a tangled mess caused by inaction by the government over the last 20 years.

Californians have come to something of a consensus on the issue because of the heavy reliance of agribusiness on immigrant labor, legal or otherwise. But the rest of the country, that's another story.

With illegal immigration at something like 12 or 13 million people, and illegals showing up in Denver, Chicago and Lexington, Kentucky, it seems more like an alien invasion to them than it does to us.

Of course, the Republicans, desparate to take the focus off Bush and their rubber-stamp government, have pushed the issue hard now. Throwing red-meat to the base always works for the Republicans, and they're hoping to ride the hate momentum into the November election.

Trouble ahead for the Republicans, though. They're badly divided, and they've have had no problem turning the vitriol usually reserved for Democrats on each other.

In my mind, a couple of things stand out about the debate:

Bill Falzett for Congress

2006-03-28T16:39:00.000-08:00

Democrats have fulfilled a basic requirement for the fall election, and that was to field a credible challenger to Wally Herger.

Bill Falzett of Yuba City has qualified for the Democratic primary in June. Falzett appears to be a candidate Democrats in the 2nd District can rally around and support with their votes and their money. A good place to start learning about Falzett, his biolgraphy, his positions, is his website, http://www.falzett.org/

This sentiment from the website caught my eye:

“Our middle class is shrinking and with it our system of checks and balances is eroding. That erosion is the result of a conservative creep to the extreme right in political thought and action. In the 2nd District, our incumbent Congressman is described as a nice fellow. I’ve met him and he is, as far as I can tell, a nice man. But, he is the voice of that creep to extremism.” -- Bill Falzett

Amen. I have come around to the belief that middle-class voters simply take for granted that they and their children and their grandchildren will always enjoy a middle class lifestyle. After all, that’s the only lifestyle they’ve ever known.

But the middle class wasn’t created when the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. It was created after the Great Depression through the policies of FDR. Policies engendered today’s middle class. Herger consistiently votes for policies to undo the middle class. Witness Herger’s support of privatization of Social Security. He had hoped to drive a stake through the heart of the most successful social safety net in our history.

What I like most about Falzett is the story of who he is. He served in military, and has a son who served in Iraq in the 82nd Airborne Divison of the U.S. Army. We should all thank his son for his service.

Already, Falzett knows more about the consequences of war than Wally Herger ever will.

Not a single Republican congressional incumbent should run unopposed this November; thankfully, Herger will not. Herger has an extreme voting record and is joined at the hip to the right-wing extremist agenda of Tom DeLay, easily to most corrupt, amoral politician to descend on Washington D.C. in a generation.

I urge Democrats from Yuba City to Yreka to put aside the Republican Kool-Aid which goes something like, “Oh, Northern California, that’s where the right wingers live. A Democrat will never win that seat.”

If you’re a Democrat, and you buy into that, you’re conceding defeat before the battle is even joined.

So, let’s join the fight and build a better Democratic network in the district for now, and the future. Let’s talk about Herger’s record which is far more extreme than most of the moderate Republicans who live in Northern California. Let’s make him defend it.

--Drzal

More on Cowering Dems

2006-03-27T18:13:00.000-08:00

The lack of support from the Establishment/D.C./Spineless Democrats – pick the derogatory descriptor that suits you best – for Senator Russ Fiengold and his censure resolution got me to thinking about the respective grassroots bases of the Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats like Biden, Reid, Feinstein and Lieberman ran from Fiengold when he offered the resolution to censure Bush for breaking the law for his warrantless spying on Americans. This, despite deep support among the progressive base of the party for Fiengold, and, despite Bush’s press conference where he, for all intents and purposes, fessed up and admitted he broke the law.

How do the Republicans treat their activist base? Well, I suspect they fear their base is just a little crazy. We all know there are plenty of crazies on the right.

Just as there are plenty of crazies on the left. (Present blogger excepted, of course).

Clearly, the national Republican leadership has a much better relationship with the grassroots than the Democratic leaders have with their base.

The Clinton impeachment is a perfect example of this. The Republicans had the House of Representatives and they pushed hard to impeach Clinton for having sex. But, more than anything, they wanted to fire up the base, and the whole impeachment thing did just what they wanted.

Remember, Clinton was very popular at the time; his poll numbers were in the 60’s. But that didn’t stop the Republicans. Bush is in the mid-30’s. The evidence showing he lied to get us into an intractable war is overwhelming. What on earth is stopping the Democrats?

If the Democrats can’t show the American people anything but chattering knees, how can the party expect to win back the House or the Senate?

Unreal.

--Drzal

9 trillion (and counting)

2006-03-21T14:03:00.000-08:00

It's impossible to wrap your head around 9 trillion dollars, the new debt limit approved by the borrow and spend Republicans.

It's also hard to wrap your head around the idea that, just five years ago, the federal budget was balanced, and surpluses were growing that could be used to pay down the debt or shore up Social Security if need be.

Goods news for all you war supporters: You won't be paying a dime of the billions and billions it will take to pay for this massive failure. It's all borrowed money.

The bill for the trillions in debt will fall on people not even born yet. I wonder how many millions of unborn will be saddled with this reckless and irresponsible and selfish financial burden.

Wrap your head around that.

--Drzal

Aimless Drift

2006-03-20T19:28:00.000-08:00

Many people are wondering what we should do in Iraq. Of course, there is no good option because if there was one even an administration as incompetent as this one would have found it.

At the third anniversary of this unmitigated disaster, here’s what I think Bush should do:

He must raise the forces necessary to stabilize the country, and that means stemming the insurgency AND stemming the sectarian civil war.

To raise the forces, Bush and the Republican Congress must institute a draft. Bush needs to go to the country, make the case for a draft, expend his political capital, and do what’s necessary to this thing off the dime.

If the President can’t accomplish the above, then he must withdraw our troops immediately. If solid steps are not taken to achieve one of the two steps outlined above, the result will more lives lost and more dollars wasted next year. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I doubt Bush will exhibit the leadership required to extricate the country from a quagmire of his own making. He can't exhibit what he doesn't have.

Rather, Bush can’t wait for Jan. 20, 2009 to arrive. He eagerly awaits the day he can cut and run from Washington D.C.

--Drzal

The Bond

2006-03-17T10:34:00.001-08:00

UPDATE: National Public Radio ran a pro Republican report on the bond deal from John Myers of the California Report. NPR does a lot of pro-Republican reporting. Here's the e-mail I sent to the California Report:

I just listened to John Myers' NPR report on the bond deal gone sour, and can't help wondering if Mr. Myers could have spent a little effort in locating a Democratic operative to comment on the story. The report was atrociously unbalanced since it relied exclusively on operative Dan Schnur for rosy spin for the Republicans on the failure of their Governor to get a bond on the June ballot. Lastly. Mr. Myers called Pete Wilson a moderate; this after Prop 187 and a host of right wing policies that to this day have driven Wilson into the political shadows. To call Wilson a moderate tells me all I got to know about what Mr. Myers knows about California politics.

On the whole, the report was garbage.

John Drzal
NorCal Progressive

I stopped giving money to NPR a long time ago.

A lot of people will want to portray the failure of a bond deal for the June ballot in California on partisan politics, but it's good to remember that Republicans scuttled this deal. It's their motives for doing so that remain unclear.

The bond was suppose to be for roads, schools, and levees. That's what Schwarzenegger proposed, and Republicans and Democrats everywhere know there is a great need for improvements in those areas.

But the Republicans came to the table, supposedly to negoiate, and immediately said their proposals for new dams were non-negoiable. That's how the Republicans negoiate. But it was a ruse because Republicans see negoiation, consensus and compromise as a sign of weakness.

Dams and/or water storage projects are unrelated to the infrastructure shortcomings facing the state, and the Republicans should have pushed them in separate legislation if they felt that strongly about their proposals. But, no, they tried to leverage the bond and we all lose because of it. Most of all, they knew Democrats would not go along with the dams. So the Republicans purposely poisoned the bond.

Two things we can take from this:

Republicans scuttled this thing when their Governor badly needed something positive to happen as he heads for reelection. Either they believe their posture wouldn't hurt Schwarzenegger because he is a lock for reelection or, alternatively, they think Schwarzenegger is political dead meat, and are leaving him to twist in the wind.

Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but I hope its the latter.

Schwarzenegger himself was mildly critical of his own party. That means he didn't have the juice to get Republican leaders to back down and compromise on a bond deal which would have helped his own reelection cause.

Once again, Schwarzenegger proves can't lead, and that he is more of the "same-old, same-old" incompetent Republican poltician.

--Drzal

Cowering Dems

2006-03-15T10:28:00.000-08:00

Another update:

From Howard Dean, M.D.:

"Agree or disagree with Russ Feingold's censure resolution, it is completely out of bounds to suggest that anyone demanding accountability is siding with terrorists. It is simply un-American (my emphasis)to question the patriotism and loyalty of a Senator who wants the Congress to live up to its responsibility."

un-American. That's the operative word here.

Quick update:

A Republican Senator from Colorado accuses Feingold of treason, claiming Feingold is "siding with the terrorists" for introducing a censure resolution. When you're weak, have suspect morals and lack decency, you accuse your opponents of being traitors or question their patriotism. Par for the course for the Republicans. When you do that to fellow American citizens, you kick America itself.

I just couldn't pass on this one. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin:

I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide.

Boy, he has that right, maybe excepting Boxer but certainly including Feinstein. Read this whole thing at ThinkProgress.

--Drzal

Perks and Priveleges

2006-03-13T13:00:00.000-08:00

Almost sounds like the title to a Jane Austen book, doesn't it?

But it's really just the same old sad story of Wally Herger saying one thing and doing something else.

I came across this article Sunday in which Knight Ridder explains how about 125 Congressman are billing taxpayers to the tune of $1 million a year for car leases. (The U.S. Senate doesn't allow such blatant feeding at the public trough.)

The President says we are addicted to oil, and it must be true when our Congressman billed the government for $8,400 to lease a Ford. It doesn't say if it is a SUV, but it bet its a four wheel drive. There are some pretty steep hills up there in Bidwell Park.

At $700 a month, Herger is the upper echelons of the perks parade. Herger extremist soulmate John Doolittle made the top 10 while Richard Pombo, another right wing wacko, spent less on car leases than did Herger. Dan Lungren didn't have the taxpayers foot the bill for his vehicle. Good for him. Or maybe he didn't know about the privelege.

Take a look at the full list here.

If Herger is going to bill us to ride around in a nice car, he should at least bring back some of the pork money that was available in the transportation bill. Remember when Herger voted for the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, but couldn't get an extra few million dollars to improve a road from Upper Paradise to Forest Ranch so people can get out of there if Butte Creek Canyon ever goes up in flames.

As crooked as Doolittle is, he at least brings home the pork.

Wally, he drives around in a nice car.

--Drzal

California Clean Money Bill

2006-03-09T22:57:00.000-08:00

Usually, when I post, I rant about something I’m against. Today, I want to talk about something I’m for.

I’ve been reading up on the law that would allow public financing of political campaigns in California.

A lot of details need hashing out and, to my mind, redistricting reform needs to come first, but so far I like what I’m reading and hearing about public financing of California campaigns.

It would just cover statewide races – not congressional races. Washington D.C. is where the real corruption lies. Yesterday, I posted on how Wally Herger launders campaign contributions through his congressional campaign committee. All perfectly legal. Completely lacking in ethics, but perfectly legal.

I had to laugh the other day when Herger said he cleared his overseas junkets – and, yes, family members were with him – with ethics officials in the House of Representatives. Of course, it was corrupt, ethically challenged Republicans like Tom DeLay that wrote the rules.

I believe that, for both state and federal campaigns nationwide, almost 90 % of the money given to candidates comes from corporations, lobbyists or special interest political action committees.

No wonder people don’t feel like their government is representing their interests.

Duh, it’s not, and hasn’t been for a long time.

Anyway, the California law cleared the Assembly and goes to the state Senate where a committee of both chambers will try to come up with a bill that can get a majority vote. The whole thing would go before voters in June, 2008, leaving plenty of time for the public to learn about the measure, and debate the pros and cons. That’s the way it should be.

There’s quite a lengthy analysis by the legislative counsel. Be forewarned, it is something of a slog to get through it.

But, it draws heavily on the public financing of elections laws adopted in Maine and Arizona.

Very basically:

·a candidate qualifies for public financing if he/she collects at least 500 donations of $5 for an Assembly seat; it goes up for Senate, Attorney General, Governor etc.
·the candidate qualifies by agreeing to spending limits, doesn’t use personal wealth
·an Assembly candidate would receive $100,000; Senate candidates would receive $200,000. Amounts would increase all the way up to $6-million for Governor.
·it would be financed by transferring one penny a day for each California resident of voting age from the General Fund to a clean money account. (Other funding mechanisms are also being discussed.)

It’s not known where Schwarzenegger comes down on the issue. Here’s a quote of his during the recall campaign of 2003:

“Dirty money. The people of this state do not trust their government. They feel it is corrupted by dirty money, closed doors and backroom dealing. Game over,” Schwarzenegger declared.

So what did he do? Amassed a small fortune from special interests, namely investors, real estate interests, developers and companies in the entertainment, high-tech, healthcare, agriculture and insurance industries for his grandiose special election.

We know how that turned out.

Finally, after researching the thing, if you think it’s worth pursuing, check out this online petition here.

Ahhh, there’s a refreshing breeze blowing out the Capitol city. It’s disinfection for corruption and the status quo. Let’s go with it.

--Drzal

Way of the World

2006-03-08T13:18:00.000-08:00

Recently, Ron Acevedo commented:

"Fortunately John I am very patient and don't mind explaining once again the ways of the world. Californians and Americans in general are sick to death of all politicians. Much of this is due to the Democrats slash and burn rhetoric of the past few years. Some is due to the fact that politicians aren't rated very high to begin with."

Mr. Acevedo opined that we are all sick to death of politicians, but I think he might more accurately state we are sick to death of the influence money is having on politicians and our representative government.

You see, I suppose Ron Acevedo is a pretty good guy. It's just that somewhere along the line he was led astray by the siren call of Republican mythology which can be boiled down to this: Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too. But, I digress.

I think there's way too much money in the system. Special interest money. Lobbyist money. It can't help but influence a politician, be it a Republican or Democrat. I happen to believe that the public interest ranks well down on any politicians list of priorities. I wonder if Ron can agree with me on that?

Wally Herger is a good example of what is wrong with just one aspect of the system. Look at his most recent campaign statement, and you'll see he gave $1,000 to somebody in Flordia named Gus Bilirakis who is running in the Republican primary. Maybe he actually knows this guy, likes him and decided to support him.

But then you go back through Herger's reports over the years and you find dozens of $1,000 contributions to bunches of nobodys from all over the country. Either the Republican D.C. campaign machine is directing those contributiions, or Herger knows a lot of people from every nook and cranny of the country.

Then you read in the newspaper that Herger raised more than $675,000 for his 2004 campaign and spent more than a $500,000 to beat a guy who spent $11,000. Where's the sense in that?

Also, at one point, Herger gave the Republican National Committee(might have been the Republican Campaign Congressional Committee) $500,000. It was called excess contributions.

Herger sits on House Ways and Means and rakes in thousands of dollars in contributions from Big Pharma, Tobbacco and others. He then hands it out to other Republicans for their campaigns, or to other Republicans who strategically direct it to where it's needed.

So the special interests give the money to Herger so he can wash their names from it and pass it on. It's all done to stay with in contribution limits.

No matter how you cut it, it's money laundering. Legal maybe, but money laundering nonetheless.

It's shameful and hypocritical, especially from somebody like Herger who loves to wear his virtue on his sleeve.

--Drzal

Throw Arnold a Boat Anchor

2006-03-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Whether it's a boat anchor, all that cash lining his pockets or steroid-infused gonads of solid steel, there's a huge weight dragging Schwarzenegger's approval/disapproval numbers down to the bottom of the tank.

Are we all that upset about it? Nahhh.

The Field Poll more or less confirms the Rassmussen Poll of a few weeks ago, which puts Schwarzenegger's poll numbers in the high 30's to low 40's.

An incumbent politican heading into the election, now less than six months away, with numbers at 50 percent would be sweating big time. He'd be thinking seriously about his post-election vacation plans, like how many big payoffs he can get from making more bad, violence-filled action movies.

Schwarzenegger is having a hard time cracking 40 percent.

So much for a big spurt from his "moving to the middle" gambit. Too late for that hooey. For every 3 Democrats/Independents he picks up, he loses 2.95 conservative Republicans. If the Republicans in this state give up on him - and they still might - then the slapdown he suffered in the special election will be nothing compared to the slaughter he will suffer in Novemeber.

Of course, there still is the charisma factor, and Californians do allow themselves to get caught up in celebrity hoopla politics. But, this time, I think the state has had enough of this bad actor.

--Drzal

Bush, the Great Protector

2006-03-05T08:35:00.000-08:00

Sure.

Let's see how he's doing with his post 9/11 mindset. You know, the mindset that says our government will be vigilant and safeguard the country from all threats. The mind set the neo nuts(want you to believe they)have, but the liberals don't have.

Ports - whopping numbers of Americans can't believe Bush actually wants to turn over port operations to a foreign country with links to nuclear smuggling and Bin Laden. Oh, they like the Taliban too.

Katrina - Bush was on those tapes with a look of: "You woke me up for this?"

Pakistan - Here's hoping the military government there holds one honest election during our lifetimes.

India - this is the most blatant case of making our country and the world less safe. With this agreement, Bush is shooting the nuclear non proliferation movement full of holes. How, in the future, can this country use it's moral authority to prevent another country from obtaining nuclear bombs? It can't, because Bush is squandering our moral authority.

Look at it this way: there would be no inspections on the nuclear side of the Indian program. Remember, this is a country that wouldn't sign the non proliferation treaty and secretly converted material from a reactor sold by Canada to India to make a bomb. That was on the sly and in violation of agreements signed with the U.S. and Canada.

Bottom line: India produces enough material to build 6-10 nuclear bombs a year now. They will be able to build 18-30 bombs a year if the deal gets through Congress.

This is how the neo con facists in the government want to deal with China. Put more nuclear weapons near their border.

Bush looks, talks and walks like a moron.

This India deal proves it.

--Drzal

Ports

2006-02-25T12:56:00.000-08:00

Here's more of that vaunted "post 9/11 mindset" conservatives claim make them the champions of national security. From an agreement, marked confidential, between the government and the United Arab Emirates port company:

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Pitiful, just pitiful. Wait, there's more:

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

"All reasonable steps to help Homeland Security." Reasonable steps. That's getting tough on the UAE company. "Reasonable steps" is a phrase that leaves everything open to interpretation, gives the company plenty of wiggle room.

Those most be the "safeguards" that Chertoff was talking about the other day. He couldn't talk about the safeguards because they were secret, he said. He couldn't talk about safeguards because the safeguards were tepid, at best.

Why, this must be the new "post 9/11" mindset at work.

Republicans: take off your blinders, for the sake of the country.

--Drzal

Guardians of National Security

2006-02-22T19:42:00.000-08:00

The last few days of controversy over port security have made for interesting theatre:

GWB continues to flawlessly execute his plan for poltical self-destruction. Atta boy.

The blogosphere is reporting federal law requires a mandatory 45 day review when the company involved is controlled or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Yet, the Administration continues to claim the vetting process was complete. Hmmmm, they wouldn't be fibbing again? Nah, they'd never do that.

Hooo Boy. Rumsfeld to a gaggle of reporters:

Who knew?

Who KNEW?

WHOOOO KNEEEEWWWWWW?

Now, get lost. I’ve got to do some planning for some civilians I want to bomb.

Not really. Fake exchange. But Rumsfeld said he didn't know about the deal and he's one of the people on the 12 person committee that supposedly unanimously approved the deal. Now, you just never know when they're telling the truth. (I think it's less than half the time), so Rumsfeld is probably blowing smoke.

Speaking of not knowing: the White House said Bush didn't know the deal was coming down.

Good to know he's on top of national security. Good to know he has one of those post 9/11 mindsets.

Of course, Dear Leader as Great Protector was a bunch of crap all along. He got lucky enough to get enough yo-yos in the middle of the country to buy into it.

It's a little early yet, but mark my words, he will cave in the next few days.

--Drzal

Dieboldocracy

2006-02-21T19:41:00.000-08:00

Can’t say I’m surprised or shocked by the subterfuge of Secretary of State Bruce McPhereson who on Friday recertified Diebold electronic voting machines. McPhereson took no public input, gave no advance warning that he was going to take action. Guess what party affiliation goes with his name. State Senator Debra Bowen, who is running for SOS on the Democratic ticket, nailed it here:

"To rush through this re-certification, the Secretary of State had to go back on his word -- twice -- and violate federal and state law in the process. Compounding this travesty is that the re-certification is based solely on the views and recommendations of people on the Secretary's payroll.

You’ll read in the news that McPhereson acted after an “independent audit,” but it’s doubtful the news will mention McPhereson packed with audit panel with people of his choosing.

Over a Blackbox Voting.Org, you can find detailed info on the danger Diebold touchscreen machines pose to honest vote counting in California. I think it really boils down to the fact that Diebold has written crap elections software that can be compromised very easily. But they’ve invested millions in the software, and Republicans – like McPhereson – would love to see these machines in use in California.

Here’s a link to Bowen’s write up at DailyKos. It has e-mail addresses for McPhereson. There’s also a push for the Senate Rules Committee to issue subpoenas to McPhereson and SOS staff. Finally, there’s talk of a lawsuit and recall.

This is what happens when you operate the way Republicans operate: in the dark.

--Drzal

Fox Hunting

2006-02-16T12:17:00.000-08:00

Bet you didn’t see this excerpt from Fake News’ interview with the Vice President.

Brit Hume: You shot him from 30 yards. That's about from the sidewalk in front of most people's houses to their back fence, and some pellets got into his heart? That's some enriched birdshot you're toting there, Mr. Vice President.

Cheney: Ahhhh, Brit, you're not suppose to ask about that. Either you're with me or you're against me.

Brit Hume: No problem, sir. We'll cut it.

Cheney: Ahhh, Brit, let me tell you a funny story. Just a couple of years ago, a bunch of us neocons were hunting llamas. Antinon Scalia was hiding in the underbrush making bleating sounds like, ahhhh, “Oooooosama, Ooooosama.” So I put down my bottle of Colt .45, spun around and fired one over his head.

Brit Hume: Wow. What did the President say when he heard that one?

Cheney: Ahhh, Brit, Rumsfeld did not think it was funny. Rumsfeld - he's the co-president, you know that, Brit - said I had a pre-9/11 mindset. He said I should get a post-9/11 mindset. You know, torture first, ask questions later. Break the law, ask questions later. Shoot first, ask questions later. So Harry got up behind me, and a I shot him.

Britt Hume: No kidding.

Cheney: Yeah, ahhhh, (slaps his knee), lucky for Harry he hunts with a guy who travels with his own M*A*S*H unit.

I'd say that "excerpt" is the sum and substance of Fake News’s interview with the Vice-President of the United States. The shameless mainstream media shouldn't even come within well, 30 yards, of that interview.

--Drzal

Schwarzenegger Polling

2006-02-14T10:53:00.000-08:00

From pollster Scott Rasmussen:

California Governor///Feb. 8, 2006///Margin of Error: 4.5%

Schwarzenegger: 40%

Phil Angelides: 41%

The Terminator looking terminal himself. Don't be fooled by how close the match-up appears to be. 40% for an incumbent officeholder less than a year from election is gut-check time, "uh-oh" time, termination time.

Any time an incumbent falls below 50% in his favorability rating he might as well schedule a hunting trip with Cheney, cuz the voters are going to give him worse. 40% is awful, and Angelides/Westly haven't even begun to stick Schwarzenegger's record in his face.

Rasmussen didn't posted the percentages of Democrats, Republicans and Independents sampled in the poll of 500 people (which is not a large sample). Sampling more Republicans than Democrats and, especially in California, Independents would skew the poll in favor of the Republican and inflate his favorable rating.

I can't say that happened here, but it happened often during the presidential campaign polling. Gallop was the worst offender.

Westly clocked in at 34% compared to 39% for Schwarzengger. Neither Angelides or Westly have the name indentification of a movie star failing miserably in his starring role.

Angelides is the candidate of the Democratic "establishment" in California. At this early stage, I like what I see from both Westly and Angelides.

Bottom line: The Governor's seat is theirs to lose.

Herger Angle on Plame Case

2006-02-13T19:44:00.000-08:00

Cheney’s role in the disinformation campaign against Ambassador Joe Wilson is leaking out, so now is a good time to talk about a role – a slight role to be sure – Wally Herger played in the Republican effort to discredit Wilson, who spilled the beans on Bush’s lie that Iraq was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger.

Herger signed a letter in 2004 that called Wilson a liar.

“We now know, of course, that all of Wilson's claims were lies.”

A liar. Pretty strong word for a Congressman who acts like he’s the only representative in Washington, D.C. with strong moral values. If you’re going to call someone a liar, you had better have the goods on that person. Herger and the nine other people who signed the letter come up well short short of the mark.

It was reported in the New Yorker (sorry, I don’t have a link) that Cheney tasked senior CIA officials with digging up dirt on Wilson. Their job was to discredit Wilson. Of course, the campaign led to the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, ruining her career, possibly jeopardizing her safety and the safety of people she had contact with overseas, blowing the cover of a CIA front company, and damaging the national security of this country.

Can you imagine the screaming that would be going on if someone in the Clinton Administration had outed a CIA agent?

According to the New Yorker, Cheney got started on Wilson at least six months before Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he didn’t know who Joe Wilson was.

Here’s the letter. It is addressed to the Nation Institute. Ron Ridenhour is the American soldier (and hero) who blew the whistle on the My Lai massacre. You be the judge.

July 22, 2004

Dear Mr. Hamilton Fish:
You've been snookered and you shouldn't stand for it!

We are referring to the Nation Institute's giving the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling to Ambassador Joe Wilson, who has just been exposed as a liar on, well, pretty much everything.
In the interests of "Truth-Telling," we think you should withdraw Wilson's award so that your organization does not become a laughingstock. While it is doubtful Wilson would agree to give you the $10,000 prize back, maybe you could shame him into donating it to some charity, since it was undoubtedly received under false pretenses. Consider.

The award was given to Wilson for his "raising questions about the Bush Administration's truthfulness, and undermined its claim that it had ample evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq." Specifically, Wilson wrote in a 2003 New York Times op-ed that President Bush had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat." He allowed that he had been sent to Niger to look into claims that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake ore from that country. Wilson informed us "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
We now know, of course, that all of Wilson's claims were lies. First, there is the exhaustive British report put out by Lord Butler that concludes, "the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned the Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

This assessment was backed up by the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which stated that Wilson's debriefing provided "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting," in other words, the British were right.

Then there is the claim by Wilson that his wife had nothing to do with his going to Niger on behalf of the CIA, saying "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." However, the Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002 memo from Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, that does promote her husband for the mission, saying "my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Finally, Wilson was not truthful when he told the Washington Post that documents about the uranium deal may have been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." When asked by the committee staff how he came to such a conclusion when he could not possibly have seen the documents in question, Wilson said he may have "misspoken." We'll say.

As you know, Wilson's fraudulent claims were the basis for many of the most scurrilous attacks on the president and vice president. These attacks continue today. By withdrawing your award you will be not only restoring integrity of the Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling, but you will also be sending a clear message about the importance of accuracy and fairness in political discourse.
For the sake of your organization and its honor, rescind Ambassador Joe Wilson's award.

Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Rep. Joe Wilson, Rep. Steve King, Rep. Michael Burgess, Rep. Randy Neugebauer, Rep. Steve Chabot, Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Wally Herger (my emphasis), Rep. Cass Ballenger, Rep. Robin Hayes. Rep. Bob Beauprez

Hamilton Fish of the Nation Institute wrote a lengthy rebuttal to the letter. Follow this link to the full rebuttal. In part, Fish responds:

In your letter, you cite two statements in your attempt to brand "all of Wilson's claims" lies. You note that the Butler report released in England said "the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned the [sic] Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." And you point to a sentence in the Senate Intelligence Committee report that stated that Wilson's trip to Niger provided "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting." You conclude, "In other words, the British were right."
That is not a fair reading of the record. The Senate Intelligence Committee report said much more on this point than you indicate. It noted that Wilson's trip was interpreted differently by different US intelligence analysts. Some took Mayaki's recollection of his meeting with Iraqi businesspeople as possible confirmation of the Niger allegation; others believed the information Wilson had obtained offered additional reason to doubt the charge. As the report stated:
"For most analysts, the information in the report [that was written by the CIA following Wilson's trip to Niger] lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."

Fish also wrote:

On April 5, 2003, according to the Senate report, the National Intelligence Council issued a memo that noted, "We judge it highly unlikely that Niamey [the capital of Niger] has sold uranium yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years." It added that the government of Niger would have been unlikely to proceed with such a deal. And on June 17, 2003, the CIA produced a memo that said, "Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."
So Wilson's assessment, rather than being false, ended up being accepted by the CIA. And, of course, the White House conceded in July 2003 that the allegation should not have been included in the State of the Union address.
Wilson's reporting may not have been conclusive. But as we have been told often, such is frequently the case in intelligence collection. After coming back from Niger, Wilson's view--which he did not express publicly for nearly a year and a half--was different from that held by CIA analysts. Yet his conclusion--that the Niger allegation was probably bunk--was in line with the thinking of the State Department on this matter. And Wilson's reasoning came to prevail and to be shared by the intelligence community.

As for the British report,

The British government seems to be standing by the original allegation, and Butler has provided it backup. But the CIA, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, ended up concluding that the charge was not well-founded. You are free to point to the Butler report and accept its word over that of our own intelligence system, which you supposedly oversee, but you (or your staffers) should be aware that US intelligence reached the opposite conclusion.

Wilson, as we all know now, was right.

All of this was happening in the summer of 2004 when the right wing and its media allies was coming down as hard as they could on Wilson. Was Herger a willing participant in the Vice-President’s disinformation campaign against an American hero, happy to help smear a political enemy of the Republican Party?

--Drzal

Muslim Violence

2006-02-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s a crazy world.

That’s my first thought about the outbreak of violence in the Muslim world in response to a cartoon.

My second, more serious, thought is that the episode tends to prove Western culture and Eastern culture really exist on wildly separate orbits. This time the two worlds crossed paths.

My sense is a big collision is coming.

First and foremost, I deplore the violence unleashed by Muslims as a response to the political caricature of Islam’s prophet. They would do better if they boycotted Danish pastry. I heard a Danish woman on the radio the other day lamenting the loss of business in Jordan or Egypt or someplace in the Middle East. She it took five days to tear down what she had built over 20 years.

I think the Western press has the right to print the offensive cartoons. The question is should they? Should they show more sensitivity to another religion and culture, and risk the charge of self-censorship?

Well, that happens in the American press everyday.

I can understand Muslim community’s anger. There’s talk of newspapers in the Middle East running cartoons trivializing the Holocaust. I don’t think many Jews will be happy about that. I can remember Christian outrage when an artist depicted a crucifix suspended in a jar of his urine. Plenty of people were outraged about that (and the fact that taxpayer dollars helped fund the artwork.)

But nobody rioted. Western tradition allows political criticism, even when it strays over into criticism of a religion or culture. I think violence is much more part and parcel of life in the Middle East, where people have little experience with political debate, a free press and democracy.

And, yes, hubris has a lot to do with the West’s acceptance of a slander against another culture or religion. Americans, as a rule, haven’t cared much about the rest of the world for a long time.

I have a way of looking at the Middle East and Islam, and what we should be doing to ease tensions with a culture and religion that has millions ( a billion?) of followers.

Think of three circles, one inside the other.

The smallest circle, at the core, is comprised of the terrorists. They’re radicals, they’ve twisted religion to suit their beliefs, and they’ll kill innocent people to accomplish their goals. The Jihadists will never change.

The next circle is that part of the Muslim world that sympathizes with the inner circle. They’ll give moral support, and maybe even money, to the inner circle. But they won’t commit acts of violence.

The third circle, by far the largest of three, is the rest of the Muslim world. Peaceful, law abiding, hard working and the part of the Muslim world that deplores what the fundamentalist radicals are doing in the name of Islam.

Our goal should be to do everything possible to shrink the inner core and everything possible to dissuading the middle ring from moving toward the inner circle. Maybe a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. For every attack helicopter we sell Israel, let’s build a hospital or school in some impoverished Muslim country. Actually, we’re doing the opposite: war and occupation are driving the middle ring into the arms of the inner circle.

The violence over cartoons, I believe, reflects the anger of the middle circle, which is being pushed toward the ranks of the radicals.

--Drzal

King Funeral

2006-02-09T13:06:00.000-08:00

Bush never showed up when she was alive, so why did he show up at her funeral? Appearances, probably, since other former Presidents would be attending Coretta Scott King’s funeral.

Neo cons around the country, and right-wingers in the media, have worked themselves into a froth of righteous indignation because Bush took a couple on the chin.

What did they expect? Bush opposes affirmative action, disdains the poor, and, generally, opposes everything Mrs. King stood for.

Bush’s treatment at the King funeral is indicative of how the rest of the country thinks of Bush personally and of his policies. He is so used to appearing before hand-picked audiences at antiseptic, controlled events that he clearly appeared uncomfortable and confused.

He must have been wondering, where were the fawning cheerleaders he is used to seeing after a speech?

There was nothing wrong with what was said at the King funeral. It was the family's call as to whether the service would be somber or an uplifting celebration of her life. The family's call. No one else’s, and no one has the right to question it.

What was wrong was Bush hypocritically trying to score a few political points with African Americans.

--Drzal

Slip Kid

2006-02-08T12:37:00.000-08:00

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was on the dock before the Senate Judiciary Committee and his time was equally divided between getting his ass kissed by the Republican Senators and getting a good grilling from the Democrats.

For once, the Democratic Senators seemed ready to ask tough questions and show the country it is the Democrats that truly believe in the rule of law.

Republicans believe in the rule of law when it’s useful to question a political opponent’s patriotism. But when the President skirts the law, the Republicans can’t be bothered to bat an eye.

I’ve said it so many times, I’m sick of saying it. But duty requires me to say it again: Beltway Republicans are freaking hypocrites.

Of course, this is all about Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. Gonzalez prepared for the questioning from the Judiciary Committee by pretending he was up for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a practice of sorts for him. Gonzalez was evasive in his answers to simple questions that had nothing to do with the “operation” of the spy program thus honing his ducking, dodging and skills of obfuscation and deception should he ever be rewarded for his loyalty with a U.S. Supreme Court appointment.

Bush’s big problem is that there was a law on the books. It might have been a law he didn’t like. It might have been a law that he felt didn’t meet the demand to fight terrorists quickly and efficiently. It might have been a law that didn’t pass muster in light of new technologies that allow massive snooping of electronic communication.

But it is the law. A law legally enacted by Congress and the President according to the Constitution of the United States. If it’s not working, you amend it, or repeal it and replace it with something that will work.

Bush decided he was above the law, above the Constitution. King George. Dictator George.

Bush spied on Americans without a warrant. He didn’t even bother with the current law that allows the spying to begin immediately as long as the legal requirements of probable cause are met within 72 hours. He didn’t bother going to Congress to get the changes he wanted, primarily because he knew Congress would not give him such broad sweeping power.

Probable cause, that’s a problem too, because it must convince a judge there is a reasonable belief the snooping will uncover wrong-doing, or a terrorist working in concert with another terrorist, or sympathizer. Probable cause protects everyone because it prevents the government from going on a fishing expedition.

It is the cornerstone of democracy.

The mainstream media reports something like 5,000 Americans have been caught up in Bush’s dragnet. It’s laughable to think that all of them have terrorist connections. In fact, the spies are generating so many names and telephone numbers, the FBI can’t keep up with them all. In fact, the FBI is being distracted from the crucial investigations that will track down terrorists in this country.

California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Gonzalez if the President could order the government to murder somebody to illustrate the point that Bush is taking the country down a dangerously slippery slope.

Gonzalez was asked when the War on Terror will be over. He hemmed and hawed, because that’s the one question he and Bush and the rest of the imperial presidency neo-cons don’t want asked.

It will never be over because the War on Terror is the basis for unlimited executive power, and this is how the neo cons satisfy their lust for power.

The War on Terror is also War on the Civil Liberties of Americans, and on the Constitution itself.

Bush must be impeached and removed from office.

To the extent we change our lives, or retreat from our freedoms, liberal values and democratic traditions, the terrorists will have won. Bin Laden must be in a cave somewhere laughing his ass off, thanking Allah for an easy mark like George W. Bush.

--Drzal

Health Savings Accounts

2006-02-01T21:35:00.000-08:00

President Bush has a plan for the health care affordibility crisis.

Make it worse.

You'll hear a lot more about HSA's in the coming days. Strange, I thought the big talking point after the SOTU would be health care, but it was America's oil addiction. I guess the mainstream media didn't read the talking points.

The Republicans haven't said much beyond generalities - the "base" is happiest when their leaders pique their interest with slogans - and no wonder. Start getting down to details, and all of sudden it don't sound so good.

The HSA's they're talking about start with a mandate that you can only buy into a health insurance policy with a very high deductible - something like $10,000. So, it's really major health crisis insurance.

$10,000.

Clearly, the Republican goal is to convince people to make do with less health care. If you're poor, then force those people to go without needed treatment. HSA's will discourage people from seeking the health care they need.

But the wealthy will get a tax break. Hey, that's the highest priority for the Republicans these days.

It sounds a lot like the private accounts for Social Security sham he had going last year.

Here's hoping Bush takes a barnstorming tour of America talking up HSA's in that folksy, dumb-s, drawl his "base" loves so much. Bush went all over the country promoting his privatizing social security snakeoil. The more he campaigned for it, the less popular it became.

Different bottle. Different label.

Same 'ol snakeoil.

--Drzal

Kick the Darkness

2006-01-30T20:34:00.000-08:00

"heard a singer on the radio late last night says he's gonna kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight".

Bono added that line to "God Part II" (originally written by Canadian songwriter Bruce Cockburn), and it just about says it all after today's vote to cut-off debate on the Samuel Alito nomination to the Supreme Court.

Alito is a tough pill to swallow - he WILL join the other rightwing activist judges on the court and set the country on a course for something like 1875. What makes it even tougher was the Democratic votes to end any hopes of a filibuster, as slim as the chances of a filibuster were.

Something like a dozen Democrats refused to stand tall for Democratic values and ideals. You could understand it when they hail from a swing state or a state that votes Republican a lot of the time.

But when people like Lieberman in Connecticut and Cantwell in Washington state - states that went Democratic during the last two Presidential elections - you start to want to kick anything that moves. Better, though, to just kick the darkness.

And keeping fighting to get back the country you grew up in and love.

I'm grateful to our Senators Boxer and Feinstein for voting to continue debating the Alito nomination. I'm gonna give both of their offices a call and thank them. I hope you do too.

If you didn't know it, Murray in Washington State, Wyden in Oregon and Boxer and Feinstein, all Democrats, voted no on the cloture motion, proving once again the west coast is the best coast.

--Drzal

Herger and Spying on Americans

2006-01-29T15:37:00.000-08:00

Rep. Wall Herger continues nothing less than outright bamboozlement when he speaks to the Northstate about some major issue. In this case, Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Can’t get any more major than that.

Bamboozlement? I guess that’s a nice way of saying he’s lying.

Again.

Herger told the Redding Record-Searchlight (reg. req.) that Congress authorized the President to “take whatever action needed to be taken” after Sept. 11.

No, Congress didn’t authorize whatever needed to be taken.

No, Congress didn’t make anoint Bush “King George.” (Though Bush acts that way all the time. Perhaps this is why Herger is confused.)

What the war resolution says is Bush can use “whatever force is necessary,” and Republicans and Democrats alike say they never intended to elevate Bush above the Constitution. Even then Congress didn’t authorize Bush to wage war inside the United States.

I don’t know why the Record-Searchlight let Herger get away with such a bald false statement. It’s not the first time. He put out a press release that falsely represented a vote on the Iraq war, and he was highly misleading to his voters regarding privatizing (and eventually gutting) Social Security.

I think it’s the arrogance of the safe seat. Herger knows he can do and say anything he wants, and not pay the consequences. That includes smearing liberals. He must be reading the Karl Rove memos.

If you believe in the Constitution – and I mean believe, not pay lip service to it – then this Herger gem, as reported by the Record –Searchlight, ought to get your attention.

"I am very alarmed with what I might see happen in the interest of people’s supposed rights," he said. "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."

First, Herger sees your rights as "supposed" rights. That’s troubling enough, but then he says, "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."

So, any American mistakenly named a “suspect” under Bush’s eavesdropping program wouldn’t have any rights. No right to a lawyer. No right to habeaous corpus. You get a one-way ticket to Guantanamo.

Can it happen? Can someone running the spy program make a mistake and brand an innocent American a suspected terrorist? You bet. You know Bush is running the spy program with the same effectiveness as the Katrina response and winning the peace in Iraq. Both total failures, and not surprising, since everything Bush has done in his life – except run for President – has been a total failure.

Then there’s this quote:

"Let’s say the left and few of my friends on the right get their way. What do we have then?” Herger said. “We have known terrorists that we are aware of who can make phone calls to these sleeper cells (and tell them) ‘take a bomb into San Francisco’… and we can’t tape it and do anything about it.”

Herger is playing the fear card here. If these terrorists are known and we are aware of them, and we don’t know where the sleeper cells are, and they’re gonna bomb S.F anyday now, and we can’t do anything about it because we can’t tape them, then we’re not any safer today then we were before Sept. 11.

We’re less safe, and it’s because of Bush and Republican government.

And Herger scare tactics so he can get away with upending the Constitution ain’t gonna fly.

--Drzal

Dems Opposed to Alito

2006-01-24T21:59:00.000-08:00

It seems clear now that Judge Alito will soon be Justice Alito despite nearly unanimous opposition from Senate Democrats. Alito's nomination was sent to the Senate floor today on a straight party line vote - all eight Democrats opposed Alito.

All ten Republicans supported Alito including the supposed abortion rights supporter, Arlen Specter.

Word is that Democrats will launch a vigorous debate on the Senate floor. Maybe one or two Democrats will vote for Alito. It'll be interesting to see how the so-called moderate pro-choice/pro-women Republicans from the Northeast, people like Snowe, Collins, Sununu and Chafee, will vote on the nomination.

NARAL actually supported and endorsed Lincoln Chafee because of his pro-choice views, which says a lot about the state of the Democratic Party. Chafee is going to stick it to NARAL this week, and they deserve it.

We Democrats are going to lose this one, but the debate makes cystal clear to the American people that liberals are trying to protect indvidual freedoms, checks and balances on presidential power, and cherished American values like personal privacy and separation of church and state, a doctrine, by the way, that has allowed religion to flourish in this country.

Never listen to what Republicans say: watch what they do. A vote for Alito is a vote against women and the right of women to decide to bear a child.

--Drzal

Westly

2006-01-23T14:48:00.000-08:00

Steve Westly, the California State Controller and Democrat running for governor, will be in Chico Feb. 1.

Westly and State Treasurer Phil Angeleides are the announced candidates in the Democratic primary. The winner gets the right to defeat A-S in November.

I don't know much about Westly, and I hope to find out just where he falls on the progressive spectrum. Randall Stone of the Democratic Action Club of Chico said Westly is the guest speaker for DACC's headquarters fund raising dinner which will be begin at 7:30 p.m. at the ARC Pavilion, 2040 Park Ave., Chico.

Prior to the dinner, Westly will meet and greet at the Chico State University Bell Memorial Union from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Admission is free.

--Drzal

Vengenance is Served

2006-01-17T08:52:00.000-08:00

I have always opposed the death penalty. I can think of only a few circumstances where people should have the right and authority to kill another living creature, human or animal.

My thinking on the issue was pretty much cemented by the fact the death penalty isn't a deterent. It pretty much doesn't figure in the premediated decision to commit a heinous act.

So, what's the point?

Was it neccessary to execute Clarence Allen? I think he had even less claim for clemency than Stanley Williams. There was no claim of redemption and I am not swayed by the argument Allen's execution was cruel and unusual punishment.

He was 76, blind, deaf, shuffled around when he wasn't in a wheel chair, and had to be helped up onto his death bed.

After 25 years, what's the point?

A family member said on the radio today that "justice is served."

Justice also is served by a life without possibility of parole sentence in San Quentin.

But some people - no, a lot of people - gotta have the death.

That bothers me the most, especially when a punishment is available that, in my mind, for most of these criminals, is worse than death: a loss of freedom for a long, long time.

And, it is a punishment that takes the people of California - a proud, vibrant, hard working, and forward thinking group of people - out of the business of death.

--Drzal

House of Scandal

2006-01-16T08:07:00.000-08:00

I haven't been posting much on the Tom DeLay/Jack Abramhoff/K Street lobbying/House Republican corruption probe, mostly because it is getting covered in the rightstream media.

Other than the standard malarky that the "Democrats are doing it too," the coverage has been pretty good. Media types have to throw in the Democrats so they will achieve "balance," even if it is largely misleading. And it is. The media is so fricking afraid of its own shadow - not to mention conservative Republicans - it really has become a pathetic, untrustworthy institution.

But I digress.

I decided to post about the Republican corruption because Wally Herger, the Northstate's representative, continues to support the achitect of the House of Scandal, indicted Republican leader Tom DeLay.

According to Herger's latest campaign statement, his campaign committee donated $5,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund. This donation, posted on July 29, 2005, came one month before DeLay's (slush fund) committee, TRMPAC and its leaders, were indicted on conspiracy charges. DeLay himself was indicted on conspiracy charges one month after that.

So, at a time when DeLay was radioactive, Herger stepped to the plate with more money for his right-wing extremist soul mate.

Throw in the $6,000 Herger gave the DeLay defense fund prior to March, 2005 and you have $11,000 for the most corrupt, unethical and amoral political machine created in our lifetime.

Throw in Herger's vote for the DeLay Rule. After the Gingrich mob stormed the Capitol, the Republicans voted in a rule that said House leaders must step down if indicted. Gingrich and the Republicans did so to claim a "holier than thou" mandate while some Democrats were getting caught in their own ethical swamps. (By the way, what Wright, Coehlo, Rostenkowski and a few others did pales in comparison to what DeLay did.)

Now it's been revealed one of the so-call Republican "reformers" who is running for DeLay's old post passed out tobacco company checks on the floor of the House of Representatives.

But I digress.

So a vote to strip away the rule so DeLay could stay on even if he was indicted was held, and you've probably guessed by now that Wally Herger voted for the rule change to help his fellow pea(as in peas in a pod).

--Drzal

Chico Dem HQ

2006-01-13T17:59:00.000-08:00

Here's an "atta boy" for Randall Stone and the Democratic Action Club of Chico. DACC is opening a Democratic headquarters in Chico between now and November.

Two left-leaning Chico City Council seats are being contested, and council moderate Maureen Kirk is stepping down to run for Butte County Supervisor.

At least one local candidate will use the headquaters for their campaign, DACC Chair Stone said.

Go here to learn more about making a contribution to the DACC Democratic headquarters fund.

Doolittle Dooldrums

2006-01-11T13:23:00.000-08:00

Doolittle won't return his scandal-tainted Jack Abramhoff money for fear it might look like he had done something wrong.

Could it be Congressman John thinks he's going to be indicted?

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times hits a home run with an investigation into how Doolittle and Rep. Richard Pombo, another right-wing extremist from the Central Valley, teamed with former Republican leader Tom DeLay to derail an FDIC investigation into a Texas businessman's failed savings and loan. The piece is worth the trouble of registration. Here are a few tidbits:

Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion. The investigation was ultimately dropped.

The episode involving Hurwitz and the two California congressmen took place with little public notice just before the Abramoff scandal began to escalate. The Sacramento Bee published a story when Doolittle inserted FDIC investigative documents into the Congressional Record, noting that it occurred at a time when Congress was distracted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the anthrax episode. But what lay behind Doolittle's action, and the actions of Pombo and DeLay, did not become clear until recently, when the government documents and copies of letters between the congressmen and FDIC officials were obtained by The Times.

Hurwitz is the guy with extensive ties to California. He owns Pacific Lumber over on the North Coast, and has been trying for years to cut down the old growth timber and the giant redwoods.

In June 2001, Pombo submitted a portion of the subpoenaed documents that filled 14 pages in the Congressional Record.
Six months after that, in December 2001, Doolittle did the same, even though he was no longer a member of the committee. And his submission was much larger — filling 111 pages.
The documents were so voluminous that Doolittle and Pombo had to pay a total of about $20,000 from their congressional accounts to cover the extra printing costs.
The FDIC was outraged over the documents' release.
Its chief spokesman, Phil Battey, said in a statement to the Sacramento Bee at the time that the publication of the materials was a "subordination … and a seamy abuse of the legislative process."

Just about says it all, doesn't it?

--Drzal

Girlie Man

2006-01-07T15:03:00.000-08:00

Can you believe this guy? Schwarzenegger, to California Democrats, around the time of the Davis recall in 2003:

"They keep spending, spending, spending and when they realize they made a mistake, they go tax, tax, tax. For you guys it's an addiction. You should go to an addiction place."

In his first reelection campaign speech last week (AKA the state of the State speech), Schwarzenegger said he wants to borrow $68 billion in bonds over ten years.

New debt. More borrow and spend.

Republicans love to spend, spend, spend and foist, foist, foist the bill on the the children and grandchildren of this country who have no say or vote.

Jeez Louise.

--Drzal

Puffery

2006-01-05T19:01:00.000-08:00

Local newspapers wonder all the time why they are losing readers. Why people don't trust the media. Why young people are turning away in droves.

The Grass Valley Union ran a puff piece (reg. required) today designed to prop up the sagging image of Rep. John Doolittle, who is about to get swept up in the Republican corruption scandal brewing in Washington D.C.

The Union and its reporter, Brittany Retherford, go all out to paint Doolitte's predicament in the best possible light by talking to Republicans supporters and printing only the most glowing of comments.

They were hardly concerned with the deep reach of Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff into the Republican Congress, and the millions of dollars he has poured into the Republican money machine. Dump Doolittle has a lot more on the Abramhoff scam.

This comment is almost beyond belief:

"If you find that someone has given you money that is not legally obtained and you donate it to a different cause, that is OK; that clears the deck." - Betty Hood, Nevada County Republican.

Of course, it's nothing new to see Republicans, including local politicos and newspapers, flying the conservative flag higher than the American flag.

It is shameful for a newspaper to allow itself to be used as the propaganda organ of a political party.

I'll repeat an earlier prediction: Doolittle is gone. He just doesn't know it yet.

--Drzal

Alito

2006-01-04T22:06:00.000-08:00

Domestic spying, erosion of the right to privacy and the wall between church and state, expanded presidential and corporate powers.

Samuel Alito is a little bit of everything for right-wingers hoping to upset the delicate balance of the current court and shift it to the right.

Alito's confirmation hearings begin Monday.

The table is set for Senate Democrats to really zero in on Alito's views on abortion rights and Bush's arrogant claim that he is above the Constitution. But, will the Democrats take a seat and partake of the feast handed them in Alito's nomination?

One can only hope.

Alito, you'll recall, was passed over for a seat on the Supreme Court not once but twice. John Roberts was nominated over Alito and Harriet Miers was nominated over Alito.

We know now Miers' crash course in the Constitution didn't go so well. ("You know, Mr. President, there are three branches of government. Did you know that? Isn't that exciting?")

So, if Alito couldn't overtake Miers for the nomination, how bad can he be? Yup, that bad.

Yet, Alito still got the nomination over other conservative federal judges. One of those judges, considered a rock star in conservative circles, is Michael Luttig.

Though easily as conservative as Alito, Luttig also believes in an independent judiciary. And, even though his name is on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Luttig nonetheless delivered a well-deserved smackdown to the Administration for its handling of the Padilla "dirty bomber" case.

So why was Alito given the nod over Luttig? Here's my answer: Luttig wouldn't allow himself to become the Bush Administration's errand boy on the Supreme Court. That's a role Alito will be more than happy to play.

--Drzal

Chico Parking Structure

2005-12-29T17:00:00.000-08:00

Fred Davis wrote on his blog "Debunking the Bunk" about the new downtown parking structure at 2nd Wall as if it were a done deal, if only the City Council would grow a spine, and if those pesky natural produce growers and arts and crafts hippies would just go away.

He doesn't say so, but I think Fred is the former Chico city manager for God knows how long. The tip off for me is when he talks about downtown property owners having bought the parking lot property in the 1950's. That's something the former city manager would know. If it is that Fred Davis, he even knows which skeletons are buried under the parking lot pavement.

Fred Davis is probably the one person most responsible for the way Chico looks and feels today.

That doesn't make him right, though.

I think the Council is right to think about the legacy it will leave if it puts up another edifice right off downtown. The city's first parking structure on Salem backed up against some slightly taller structures, so it blended in a bit. It doesn't stick out like, say, the CSU parking structure.

No such luck at 2nd and Wall. That parking structuring, assuming it's two or three stories, will loom over everything around it. It will overshadow The Garden Walk outlets, the island with the bank on it to the north, those old houses along where the News & Review offices are, and the old houses/businesses to the south along Third Street.

The 2nd and Wall structure in size and scope will look a lot like the new Chico Municipal Center just a couple of blocks to the south. It's a nice looking building, but it simply dwarfs everything around it.

Does a building of that size belong in downtown Chico? No.

Try this. In your mind's eye, place yourself atop the water tower behind the News & Review offices. Looking south and east, you'll see some of Chico oldest neighborhoods. Then look right below, and imagine a parking structure where the Farmer's Market has been held for a lot of years.

Taken together, the parking structure and the Municipal Building would begin the walling off of downtown from the neighborhoods. Together, they would be the biggest, most prominent buildings in downtown.

That's what the Council must grapple with, and they are right to take it slow.

Back atop the water tower, I can see a Farmer's Market that operates more than once a week. Or maybe it could be used an open air bazaar where people actually meet and talk rather than rushing past one another on their way to their cars. Maybe the lot should be rezoned for retail space.

There are lots of options, and they all don't end in another downtown parking structure.

--Drzal

Wally Grinch

2005-12-26T17:25:00.000-08:00

Across the world, one child dies every 15 seconds because of lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation. In 2002, the United States and 185 other countries agreed to cut in half the percentage of people without access to water and sanitation, yet the world still isn't on track to meet that goal.-Water Partners International

On the first of this month, President Bush signed into law The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, a measure that commits the United States to cut by half the number of people, including children, in poverty-stricken countries that do not have access to safe drinking water or sanitary facilities.

Rep. Wally Herger of Northern California voted against this law.

The House of Representatives voted 319 to 34 for the measure. 56 House members missed the vote. Even Rep. John Doolittle and Rep. Dan Lungren voted for this bill. The Senate gave unanimous consent, in effect, 100 votes for the bill. So, more than 400 lawmakers voted for a bill to save children’s lives.

Northstate representative Wally Herger - your representative - was one of 34 votes against this law.

“The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act is the most significant global legislation passed by this Congress,” said Ambassador John McDonald, Chairman of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy and a leader in global drinking water issues for almost thirty years. “This bill provides the platform on which we can advance US action and implementation, as well as build on the Millennium Development Goals and the UN Decade of Water adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2003.”

Source: Millennium Water Alliance, December 2, 2005

According to the Congressional Budget Office, The United States would have been committed to spending around $3 million in 2006. $3 million dollars.

Wally Herger said no.

The Water for the Poor Act states the commitment of the United States to:

· Cut in half the percentage of people without access to safe water and sanitation by 2015
· Increase assistance to countries most in need of clean water
· Provide a balanced, affordable and equal means of doing this
· Improve the safety and reliability of water supplies, including environmental management
· Keep in mind existing poverty-reduction strategies in each country when pushing for the inclusion of clean water and sanitation in the plans
· Promote country and local control of water and sanitation programs
· Protect the supply of clean water through environmental management
· Design, construct, maintain and repair water and sanitation systems

Wally Herger turned his back, and looked the other way.

On average, about 3,900 children die every day because of water-borne illnesses, often after drinking from holes in the ground where water has been stagnant. That means that every 15 seconds, one child dies due to a lack of access to safe water and sanitation.

Remember those 3,900 children the next time you see a Herger “He’s one of us” campaign sign.

He’s not one of us. Northstate residents have values and compassion.

Merry Christmas, world.
With compassion,

Wally Herger.

-- Drzal

Freaking Liars

2005-12-26T17:21:00.000-08:00

The betting money is on the idea that Bush spied on us because the court that issues special warrants for domestic surveilance couldn't generate the warrants fast enough.

Does that mean the NSA, the spy agency, was involved in massive "data mining" of our e-mails and telephone calls? Were they scanning everything in hopes of finding links to a name or telephone number?

If they would only come clean. This from the Washington Post:

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

How's that for disembling?

Oh, let's not be so nice.

They're freaking liars. They have been from day one.

--Drzal

Republican Kool-Aid

2005-12-16T17:36:00.000-08:00

A little while back I was joking with a friend, a guy in the construction trade, about him taking in too much Republican Kool-Aid. He is a devoted listener of Rush Limbaugh who, I tell my friend all time, routinely lies to his audience. Limbaugh’s lies are documented time after time, I say, adding that Limbaugh lies so brazenly because his audience doesn’t care that he lies. His audience wants to hear Limbaugh smear liberals, and so he delivers smears, truth or shades of truth be damned.

I tell my friend that he is drunk on Republican Kool-Aid. I think most people know what I’m talking about, but just in case you’re unaware, Kool-Aid refers to the concoction Jim Jones whipped up to kill hundreds of people in his cult in Africa many years ago.

So, Republican Kool-Aid = Bad for your political health.

This comes up because it occurred to me that he is not the only Republican drinking the Kool-Aid.

Here in the Northstate, I think many, many liberals, progressives, centrists and just about about anyone else to the left of center have been drinking Republican Kool-Aid of at least one kind.

That Kool-Aid is the belief Democrats can’t win a race for a state or federal seat in the Northstate.

Think about it. Can you think of a better way to hold onto power than to convince your opponent that he has no chance of winning even before the competition begins?

If Democrats don’t think they can win, then what incentive is there to recruit good candidates?

If Democrats don’t think they can win, then what incentive is there to build Democratic networks and coalitions across county lines?

If Democrats don’t think they can win, then what incentive is there for state or national parties to support the grassroots and netroots of Northern California?

If Democrats don’t think they can win, then what incentive is there to expend the time, energy, and passion required to win a political campaign?

How do you win if you don’t believe you can win? That attitude must change.

Howard Dean is trying to change that perception. The Democratic National Committee chairman has committed Democrats to a 50 state strategy. A group of Northern California progressives have put forth a 58 county strategy for California.

Let’s stop ceding Northern California to the Republicans, and let’s dump the Republican Kool-Aid that Democrats will never win again in the Northstate down the drain.

--Drzal

Liberal Disease

2005-12-15T13:54:00.000-08:00

First thing out of the box on this post: Democrats and the Democratic Party are not in bad shape. True, our party has its warts, but we are finding our voice. We don’t raise as much money as Republicans. We no longer hold any of the three branches of government in Washington D.C.

Despite the negatives, we had the 2000 election stolen from us – stolen fair and square is the way I like to put it – and a turn of 70,000 or so votes in Ohio would have put John Kerry in the White House in 2004. This in a state where the integrity of the vote count was dubious at best.

So despite the problems facing the Democratic Party, we Democrats do not find ourselves in the position of the conservatives following the Goldwater disaster of 1964. Conservatives won 40 electoral votes, which translated nicely into 40 years in the political wilderness. Democrats have been on the outs for 10 years.

When it comes to pointing the finger of complacency, I point the finger at myself first.

Those days are over.

For me, it makes the most sense to win back one or both houses of Congress as soon as possible, and possibly retake the White House in ’08. Then, in my view, liberals and progressives should concentrate primarily on ridding our party of the ethically-challenged and Republican-leaning DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) that litter Washington D.C.

I titled this post “Liberal Disease” because I thought again of this common Dem affliction after John Murtha, the hawkish Democrat who called for a realistic timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, was attacked so ferociously for taking a stand against the Republican war machine.

The Republican attack on Murtha was instantaneous because simply discrediting Murtha would have taken too much time. Republican strategists understand time is of the essence, so the damage must be inflicted surgical precision. It probably would have worked had not a loud mouth, neophyte extremist Republican taken to the House floor and called Murtha, a decorated Marine, a coward. That placed all the attention on her, and took all the attention of Murtha.

Most importantly, how did the Democrats respond? A little better than usual, I think. But only a little better. Normally, the Democratic response would be: unorganized (from the laughably timid Joe Biden to the outspoken Howard Dean), slow, carefully worded, and cerebral. All typically Democratic, and all wrong. In the end, Democrats let Murtha take the lead which, lacking passion and spine as a party, was the correct thing to do.

So here, after a lot of wind, is the “Liberal Disease.” A lot of you progressives and liberals won’t like this. For conservatives who read this, I don’t care if you like it or not.

Think of the “Godfather” trilogy and the main characters.

Too many of today’s Democrats are like Fredo, the weak, insecure brother. He is too eager to earn the goodwill of people who are trying to take down the “family” and all it has built and stood for since FDR.

Democrats shouldn’t be like the wild and impulsive Sonny, who was clearly half a bubble off level. Look what happened to him at the tollbooth.

Democrats should be more like Michael, cool, analytical, and totally pragmatic. It’s about the family, period. It is strictly about business.

So, that might mean ordering a hit, or it might mean biding your time. It might mean striking with everything you got (Harry Reid calling the Senate into closed session, for instance). Sometimes it means talking peace while secretly preparing to whack the guy. Or it might mean simply talking peace.

But it has nothing to do with fairness or open-mindedness, or listening to opposing points of view. It has to do with what's best for the "family" -- which we can define as those groups and constituencies in American society who oppose the GOP machine and want to see it kicked out of power.

The Godfather mindset should apply to just about everything the Democrats seek to accomplish. Reasonable people can differ over what that means in practice: fight a lot, fight a little, just get it over with. But it just seems essential to me that everyone understands that we are in for a tough slog at this particular time in our country’s history.

If that seems like an ugly and distasteful view of the political process, I never claimed it wasn't. But it is the reality we face. And at this point, I'd rather see progressives accept the moral compromises that go with it than keep playing the patsy for the right-wing conservative machine.

I’ve said to many friends that’ll I’ll be happy to return to the reasoned political discourse we once had in this country after we have 240 (preferably progressive) Democratic House members and 55 (preferably progressive) Democratic U.S. Senators.

--Drzal

Watts Again

2005-12-11T16:28:00.000-08:00

I posted recently on Anthony Watts' entry into the race for Chico Supervisor and my take on his celebrity. Watts responded, but his comments languished because I had not approved the response. I approve all responses without editing, but this blog requires the site "owner" to approve and post all responses. I have been back East to take care of a family matter. My apologies.

Because of the delay, I'm going to place Watts' response on the front page, in full.

Hello,

Well I'm honored that Mr. Drzal chose me as a subject, but I sure wish he'd asked me a couple of questions first. Funny how people form opinions without actually conversing with the person.

First about my hearing. Yes I wear hearing aids. I had a series of ear infections as an infant and doctors treated me with Tetracycline, which unknown at the time caused hearing loss later. Its something I've struggled with almost all my life. But it actually makes me a better listener because when somebody asks me a question, I have to concentrate, and you get my full attention. Sometimes I fail, but to imply that somehow I'm feigning it for some political gain is just silly.

About my last election where I didn't campaign and got elected anyway- That's true, but there's a reason few people know about. Shortly after filing, my wife and I discovered we were to have a baby. There were some medical concerns and I decided to focus on my family because that's where I was needed most. It was too late and past deadline to withdraw, so I simply decided to lay low, concentrate on supporting my wife and I never figured on being elected. (Our son was born months later, but we almost lost him due to a prolapsed cord and an emergency c-section was needed).

To my complete surprise I was elected. And once having been given that trust by the voters, it was my duty to uphold it. Both newspapers bemoaned my election, but it only made me more determined not to let anybody down.

So there never was a campaign consultant Mr. Drzal. I'm a pretty simple guy, mostly I'm a computer and science geek and a person that likes to give back to the community.

From this column it seems some folks think I'm just a media dufus that can't hear, is uninformed, and doesn't do much.

Well here's a couple of things to look at that I've helped in or setup outright:

http://www.chicoobservatory.com/
I helped build this, hands on. I host their website too.

Public Participation in the governance process is very important, so to help I did something about it. I hope to do the same for county and also fix the Board of Supervisiors TV program which is nearly unwatchable

http://www.chico.ca.us/City_Council/Home_Page.asp

See the description at the bottom of the streaming web video system I donated to the city and then check out this link:
http://www.itworks.com/webcast/webcast.htm

Or how about the donations website I setup for Chico Schools which has generated thousands in donations?
http://www.chicoschools.com/

Or maybe the North State Renewable Energy Group of which I'm a founding member and putting my money where my mouth is by using 10 kilowatt solar power generator on my home?
http://www.nvenergy.org/

Oh and lets not forget meadowfoam and fairyshrimp!
http://www.meadowfoam.org/
Rather than just blathering about it I actually went out and studied it and created a website about it. What other Republican or Democrat or Green can say that? My only objection is that compromises couldn't be reached to allow our Highway Safety Project (HWY149/70 interchange where people DIE) to move along smoothly and our school site selection was delayed costing millions more due to rising land prices. But even so I'd protect it by creating mitigation banks. Its the right thing to do.

As you can see, I believe in DOING things, not just talking about them.

So if that makes me different than some people expect me to be, then I'm guilty as charged.

Thanks for the opportunity to reply.

Best regards
Anthony Watts

--Drzal

Scalito Again

2005-12-11T16:21:00.000-08:00

Scalito Again

Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to get underway in early January and, as the date approaches, it is important to remember “Scalito” is not a conservative.

A sleight of hand candidate? Yes. A far right judge cut from the cloth of Justice Antonin Scalia? Absolutely.

A conservative? No, and don’t let the right-wing’s spinmeisters tell you otherwise.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. is not a conservative. In the judiciary, a conservative respects and abides by the opinions of the Supreme Court. Alito, on the other hand, has a long and well-documented history of doing what he wants without regard to the rulings of the Supreme Court. Alito will attempt to rewrite much existing law, far beyond Roe v. Wade. His addition will place the majority of the court far outside the mainstream of America.

As the confirmation hearing draws closer, it would behoove all of us to call Alito what he is:

An activist judge intent on rewriting the laws of nation in his own image.

--Drzal

Super Dunce Me

2005-11-29T16:22:00.000-08:00

I was reminded of the free fall of the mainstream media in terms of respect and trust after reading E-R Editor David Little’s commentary on “advertainment” in the weekend paper.

Many local affiliates have one of those happy talk morning shows, a cheap local imitation of the network staples like "Today" and "Good Morning America." They feature things like a local chef talking about easy appetizers to prepare for your bunco group or a fashion consultant talking about how to pick colors to fit your personality.
They probably do a lot of makeovers, too, and that's exactly what's happening to the happy talk show in Minneapolis. A story Wednesday in the Minneapolis Star Tribune said the NBC affiliate will do a makeover of its morning show to "advertainment." It will still feature two hosts, maybe even the same two hosts. However, advertisers will pay $2,000 to $2,500 to buy five-minute segments on the show, according to the Star Tribune.
It's disgusting. And, sadly, it appears to be a growing trend. The Star Tribune said there are similar hybrid shows in Sacramento, Denver, Atlanta, Cleveland and other markets. I've never seen one. And I don't want to.

It is a growing trend, and has even infected the national news programs. NBC has the upcoming Winter Olympics. Take notice of all the Winter Olympics stories/features you’ll see on the Brian Williams report or the local affiliates, Channel 24/12, in the coming weeks.

The evening news is routinely used to promote some agenda or product offered by the corporate owners.

In TV land, questions of news aren’t seriously discussed. At the worst TV shops, “news” is an afterthought. Is it good video? That’s what passes, in a lot of cases, for news. A car chase is good video. The Legislature debating laws that affect our lives is not.

Corporate mainstream media. Corporate masters who have assigned a value to news/entertainment/infoprogramming/advertainment much as a stock trader assigns a value to beans, coffee, wheat or some other commodity dominate American media.

I’ve been saying for a while now that corporate mainstream media is doing to our brains and public discourse what corporate fast food is doing to our waistlines and general health. Corporate media doesn’t answer to the public. Corporate media answers to Wall Street.

Little works for a media corporation, Media News Group. They’re not the biggest media chain, but they own a lot of little newspapers around the country, and here in California. Take a look at the bottom of the Chico E-R web page sometime.

This is not to say David isn’t a good newsman. He is, and I can’t think of anyone more trustworthy to call the shots at the local daily newspaper.

But, when journalism ethics and the bottom line collide, here’s what happens:

Some newspapers have started selling advertising "watermarks" — a light, almost subliminal ad on a news page (for example, an ad for a brokerage firm behind the stocks page). The idea makes me shudder. There's a reason for separation between news and advertising, and it's because of readers. They need to know the difference.

Amen.

--Drzal

Activist Judges

2005-11-28T20:45:00.000-08:00

Redding blogger Bob Williams makes the call on activist judges:

"The Bill of Rights, Amendment IX, says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, just because a particular right of the people has not been listed in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. The right to privacy is such a case.

In contrast to this Justice Antonin Scalia said, “Every time the Supreme Court defines another right in the Constitution it reduces the scope of democratic debate.” (Speech at the University of Vermont, May, 2005).

We won’t quibble with Scalia about whether the Supreme Court “defines” a right or simply recognizes a right. In any case, in his obvious opposition to Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights Justice Scalia establishes himself as a judicial activist of the rankest kind."

Read Bob's piece here.(Scroll down to the second post). It's worth the time to read.

--Drzal

Hot Winger

2005-11-28T13:06:00.000-08:00

Word has it Rep. John Doolittle wasn't anywhere near the kitchen this Thanksgiving. Doolittle's name keeps popping up as one of a dozen Republicans under investigation by the U.S. Justice Dept. for their dealings with super lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

I'll go out on a limb and predict winger John isn't running for re-election in 2006. He just doesn't know it yet.

Dump Doolittle has this thing covered like a blanket.

Some people are wondering if Wally Herger will get caught up in the scandal. Herger took $1,104 from Abramoff pal Tom DeLay and gave DeLay $6,000 for his defense fund. But Herger is too much of a backbencher, and doesn't have the juice, unlike Doolittle, to command the attention of the real power brokers like Abramoff and his flipped business partner Michael Scanlon.

--Drzal

Herger, Doolitte, Pombo and the Shame Factor

2005-11-21T21:35:00.000-08:00

You can't be ashamed of something if you have no shame to begin with.

Take a look at this Sacramento Bee editorial on Republican attacks on the poor while chaffing to give the wealthy even more breaks. Make sure you read it to the end.

--Drzal
(cross posted @ Chico Enterprise-Record's Norcal Blogs)

Herger's Cheap Trick

2005-11-19T15:31:00.000-08:00

Predictably, Wally Herger is putting party ahead of his Northstate constituents. Herger is out with a news release claiming his leadership's cheap political stunt of offering a phony withdrawal resolution in the House of Representatives actually means something.

IT MEANS NOTHING.

Herger can't even be honest with the people who elected him to office.

The clowns leading the Republican Party put the resolution before the House in hopes of smearing Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Marine and Vietnam War veteran. As you probably had heard, Murtha, a hawkish Democrat, said it was time to get out of Iraq. Here's the text of the resolution Murtha offered:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. Military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

But Herger's Republicans weren't going to let Murtha's common sense ideas come to a vote. Here's how Duncan Hunter, another California wingnut, rewrote Murtha's resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Of course, it got voted down on a lopsided vote, the purpose of which was to allow Republicans to issue press releases in the home districts.

In the press release, Herger states: "The resolution was considered after a representative yesterday called for the "immediate redeployment of U.S. troops (out of Iraq)." Herger doesn't name the source, and those words don't appear in Murtha's resolution. Like the President, Herger can't level with his constituents.

The entire exercise was an embarrassing failure. Republicans displayed their "New McCarthyism" by questioning the integrity and patriotism of Murtha. One of their members was booed of the floor and forced to apologize. Of course, that was phony too.

What the Republicans orchestrated was something equivalent to a comedy routine on the graves of our fallen soldiers.

Within a few hours of this fiasco, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, submitted a report to the Pentagon outlining a plan for withdrawing troops early next year.

I wonder if Herger would call him a cut and run general. How about a traitor general, Congressman? What about a general that sets a timetable and emboldens the terrorists, Mr. Herger?

The conservatives utter failure in Iraq has left us with this: American armies in the Middle East, American deaths, skyrocketing deficits at home, a training ground for explosives and urban destruction, religious strife, a civil war, widespread corruption and torture.

In other words, a DREAM scenario for terrorists.

We need a plan, Wally Herger, not cheap political stunts by you and your cronies.

--Drzal

Herger Votes Wealth Over Wages

2005-11-16T14:43:00.000-08:00

Wally Herger gives the wealth of a small number of well-heeled supporters a higher priority than the wages earned by thousands of people in his Northern California district.

Herger voted Nov. 15 in the Ways and Means Committee to extend tax cuts for dividends and capital gains for two more years.

Had they been allowed to expire, the capital gains tax rate for most people would have risen from 15 percent back to 20 percent and dividends, currently taxed at 15 percent, would be taxed as wages income.

There you have it. Millionaires are taxed at a lower rate for collecting dividend checks than everyday “work hard, play by the rules” folks who for the most part pay a higher percentage of their income to the government.

About 9% of Americans earning $100,000 or less will benefit from the capital gains and dividends extensions. 53 percent of the benefit goes to people making a $1 million or more. The remaining 38 percent of the benefit goes to people who earn between $100,000 and $1 million.

Hard to believe Northstate Republicans would elect somebody who would vote for this. But they do.

Senate Republicans passed a similar bill but stripped out the capital gains and dividends extensions. One Republican Senator from Maine actually expressed a conscience about our runaway debt, which was caused by Bush’s tax cuts of a few years ago. Then along came the War, and Katrina and high energy prices. Some people ain’t gonna be able to heat their homes this winter.

It’s a mountain of debt, but hey, as long as the kids are around to pay it off in the future, why not vote for a Prince of Fiscal Responsibility like Wally Herger? And the children and grandchildren will pay it off, either in huge tax increases or a drastically reduced standard of living.

You see, what Herger and the rest of Republicans are doing amounts to nothing more than a cynical shell game. Here’s how it works:

They come out with a tax cut proposal but agree to sunset it after a few years. That helps keep the overall cost to the budget – and the increase of deficit – to a politically manageable level. Then when the tax cut is due to expire, they whimper and cry and moan that poor rich Americans are getting a tax increase. And their bellyaching is loud no one remembers the cost of extending the tax cut.

Nice little bait and switch scheme to “starve the beast.” That’s what those ultra right wingers call anything that reduces the size of American government.

Starving the beast. Nice.

--Drzal

Princes of Fiscal Responsibility

2005-11-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

Let’s get this on the table: I’m not crazy about paying taxes. I’m not a tax and spend liberal, but nor do I go into a quivering fit if somebody suggests a tax increase for this or that program or service. I think taxes are the dues we pay for this society, and done right, taxes are investments in our community and in the infrastructure(roads, bridges, the airport, the post office) required for business to prosper.

Taxes are best spent locally because you and I are going to see a return on those taxes in the form of rising property values. Chico is a desirable place to live, and people want to come here. And when there is a land shortage, and home prices rise, we all benefit. Yes, low interest rates, and a Greenline, are factors too. But so are the taxes we pay.

I start getting cranky when I see tax money used inefficiently. I get frosted when I see tax dollars wasted. And my head explodes when I see our tax dollars shipped off and spent somewhere else.

That’s exactly what the three Princes of Fiscal Responsibility – Wally Herger, John Doolittle and Dan Lungren – did when they voted for the transportation bill. To hear them and their supporters tell it, these three Princes are the guardians of our tax dollars. Never listen to what the three Princes say, watch what they do – closely. They took the gas and diesel taxes paid by you, me and the rest of motoring California – I’m talking many millions of dollars – and sent them to other states.

I always knew the transportation bill was pork barrel spending. I’m sure you have heard the same. It’s almost a ritual of Washington lawmakers to take around 10, 12 or 14 percent of the money in the Highway Trust Fund and “earmark” it for projects back in the home district. Sometimes the projects are worthy of spending, but a lot of times the projects are crap. You’ll see what I mean later on. I urge you to sit down. Try not to let your head explode.

Anyway, I was intrigued when Feinstein and Boxer didn’t vote either way for the transportation bill. I thought it was strange that both of them didn’t take a position on it. I looked at Feinstein’s news release, and she said the state was getting back 92% of the gas and diesel taxes it had paid, and that the state would get even more back in the future.

Well, all right. 92% sounds like a lot, but what about the other 8 percent. How much was that? And if it ain’t coming to California, where the hell is it going?

California's taxpayers pay more taxes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund than they receive from the Federal Highway Administration for transportation projects. Congress reduces the amount of funds available to states for discretionary spending by withholding funds from distribution and earmarking them for specific projects.

In fact, California taxpayers have been paying more in gas and diesel taxes than they receive for transportation projects since 1956. (California’s generosity extends to more than just roads and bridges, and for that reason, we are known as a “donor” state.)

If you want to all the way back to 1956, when Congress created the Federal Highway Trust fund, California has paid 10.29 percent of all the money deposited into the fund. That’s $52,501,417,000. That’s 52 billion. But the trust fund has yielded only 8.88 percent of its money back to California. That comes to $50,123,399,000. The difference, $2,378,018,000, got spent somewhere else.

But let’s go back just six years, from 1998 to 2003. California is still getting the shaft.

California gas/diesel tax payments into highway trust fund (1st column). Money received from trust fund (2nd column)/shortfall (3rd column):

1998 2,869,589,000 2,267,352,000 -602,237,000

1999 2,886,094,000 2,710,763,000 -175,331,000

2000 3,025,732,000 2,834,139,000 -191,593,000

2001 2,774,089,000 3,225,754,000 +451,665,000

2002 2,881,156,000 2,918,325,000 +37,169,000

2003 2,980,123,000 2,664,422,000 -315,701,000
____________
-796,028,000

Source: Federal Highway Administration

As you can see, $315 million of California gas and diesel taxes didn’t come back to the state in 2003. It went somewhere else.

It went somewhere else again with this time. Under the new transporktation boondoggle, California loses $275 to $300 million this year.

That’s roughly the 8 percent that is not coming back to California. You paid it, but you ain’t getting back.

You have to wonder where were our heroic Princes of Fiscal Responsibility, these great stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar, when all of this money, millions and millions paid by Californians for California roads and bridges, was disappearing.

Where were Wally Herger, John Doolittle, and Dan Lungren? Why they were down on their knees kissing the gold ring on the finger of fellow Republican wingnut Don Young of Alaska.

Young wrote the transportation bill, and he wanted $233 million for a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island, home to less than 50 people. It’s not like those folks are stranded out there. They have reliable ferry service, and the trip takes 10 to 15 minutes. But Young felt his Gravina Island residents are worth the cost of a $233 million bridge. That’s about $4.5 million per island resident. For that amount of money, we could have bought those folks their own Lear jet, or maybe a NASA jet pack.

Our Princes of Fiscal Responsibility were right there for Young. Herger, Doolittle and Lungren all voted for the bill, and they knew what was in there. California’s $275 million surely would cover Young’s bridge. (Believe it or not, Young has a second ‘bridge to nowhere” in the bill. They’re gonna call it Don Young Way.)

Herger got some pork for the district, but he should be ashamed of himself for his ineffectiveness. He got $5.8 million for the Highway 171 Upper Skyway project, but you might think Herger would hold out for another $5 million to complete the road widening project now, which will serve as an escape route for thousands of ridge residents should fire explode out of Butte Creek Canyon and start jumping from rooftop to rooftop in Paradise and Magalia.

Now it might take 10 years to get the rest of the funding. Or people can keep their fingers crossed until the next transportation bill comes up.

Remember the earmarks. Congress pulls a substantial amount of money – this time it was $24 billion, about 9 % of all the money, out of the trust fund and reserves it for pork barreling. That might not be a bad thing if you’re John Doolittle:

Riverside County has five times as many people as Placer County. But residents of Placer County, which connects Sacramento and north Lake Tahoe, are getting five times as much money per person in special projects as residents of Riverside - $261 each in Placer compared with $47 per capita in Riverside, half the statewide average of $93 per person.-
Erica Werner, Associated Press, Aug. 21, 2005

But if you’re Wally Herger, representing the North Valley’s two most populous counties, you get next to nothing. Herger’s projects for Butte County work out to $36.76 per resident, and it’s worse in Shasta County, $26.99 per resident. The median for the state is $93. Look at Doolittle’s per capita return and compare it to Herger’s return.

Or, think of it this way: All the earmarks, the pork barrel spending for California, will total about $3.1 billion. Now, take all that pork and dump it into a 25,000-gallon swimming pool. How much pork did Herger scoop from the pool for the Northstate?

55 gallons. One lousy barrel.

After nine terms, this is all Herger can do for the Northstate.

By the time the next highway bill rolls around, our Princes of Fiscal Responsibility will huddle with Young and figure out the next shameful waste of our hard-earned taxes. Hey, how ‘bout a second bridge to Gravina Island? That way Young and his 50 residents can have a one-way bridge onto the island and second one-way bridge off the island, courtesy of you, me, and our oh-so-moral and oh-so-smart Princes.

Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. If your head hasn’t exploded yet, there’s something wrong with you.

--Drzal

Getting Hammered

2005-11-13T17:38:00.000-08:00

Payday check cashing outfits have sprung up in Chico where none used to be. Now, they’re nearly as numerous as McDonalds or Starbucks. It got me to thinking about one of my favorite populist rants: the creeping erosion of the standard of living of the working poor and working families.

We have a new class of people in California, and in America: The struggling class.

I’ve ranted on the opinion pages of the E-R about the corrosive effect of so-called “free trade” agreements like CAFTA. CAFTA and its predecessor, NAFTA, were billed as job producers, but the history of NAFTA shows it was, and continues to be, a job killer. The same will hold true for CAFTA.

I’ve argued that, historically, economic policies created the American middle class and that economic policies can be used to undermine the middle class. I think conservatives are waging class warfare in California, and across the country.

I think I’ve found more evidence for my rants in two recent reports from the California Budget Project. One is a damning report that I fear will soon hit the shelf with a thud and languish until it is buried in dust.

The report’s (pdf) central premise is that the California economy is failing to produce the wealth needed for a modest standard of living for four basic family units.

Not a lavish standard of living, mind you. Simply, a basic, no-frills standard of living that keeps people and families off public assistance programs.

(The report) starts from the ground up, building a basic family budget based on the cost
Of housing, food, childcare, and other essentials needed to support a family without public or private assistance. The standard of living envisioned is more than a “bare bones” existence, yet covers only
basic expenses, allowing little to no room for “extras” such as college savings, vacations, or emergencies.

The report found California’s median income of $15.00/hr. falls well short of the $24.60/hr. needed by a family with two parents and two children, where one parent works, to maintain a modest lifestyle. For a single parent with two children, the gap between the median and required wage($25.96/hr) is even greater.

In the Sacramento Valley region, single parent families and two parent families (with one working parent) had better be earning around $20.00/hr. just to maintain a basic family budget.

California Budget Project also found the state’s minimum wage, at $6.75/hr., is an embarrassing travesty. California’s minimum wage is two to three times below the hourly wage needed for a modest lifestyle. And, when the mythmakers say, “that’s all right, only part-time high school students are being paid minimum wage,” don’t believe it.

In fact, California’s low-wage workers are predominately adults working full time. In 2003, more than six out of ten California workers earning within one dollar per hour of the state’s minimum wage were age 25 and older, while only one out of six were teens. – California Budget Project

When it came time to do something about the minimum wage, when it was time to extend a hand to the working poor, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have added a buck to the minimum wage. Schwarznegger, wanting it both ways, of course, said he was in favor of an increase in the minimum wage, just not the one Democrats put on his desk.

Art Torres, Chair of the California Democratic Party, said Schwarznegger had put the interests of the working poor dead last:

“Frankly, I find it crass and uncaring to see Republicans continue their pattern of looking out for big business at the expense of the average citizen – gasoline prices skyrocket past $3.00 a gallon and the oil companies reap billions, but they can’t find it in their conscience to bring a livable and fair wage to hard-working Americans. Gov. Schwarzenegger should be ashamed for once more vetoing the legislative efforts of Democrats to offer relief and bring a better quality of life to millions of Californians."

California’s economy has been shifting toward low-wage jobs for some time now. According to this graph (pg 8), the average annual wages of the ten fastest growing industries is $38,700. The average annual wages of the ten industries in fastest decline is $53,520.

Do the math.

Unless you’re anywhere near the top of the income ladder, chances are you’ve sensed the slow squeeze on income and lifestyle of family, friends and neighbors. You’ve seen families live from paycheck to paycheck and pray the car doesn’t beak down.

The report also details the costs of health care, child care, food, utilities and transportation, all basic necessities of living in California, and all things people worry more and more about affording. It is a must read for all Californians.

We’re about 20 years into Republican economic policies. Their plan to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and poor is working, and they’ve done a clever job of disguising it. Some Republicans reading this will want to accuse me of waging class warfare.

My response? It’s a no-brainer: Republican policies have been waging warfare on the lower and middle classes for 20 years.

Now, we need to wage electoral warfare on Republicans.

--Drzal

(cross posted at the Chico Enterprise-Record's NorCal blogs)

The Six Nixed

2005-11-09T14:45:00.000-08:00

After Tuesday’s vote, the reasons for recalling Schwarzenegger are almost as good as the reasons for recalling Gray Davis.

I’m not going on a recall rant because we’ve all had enough of special elections, especially special elections that are nothing more than petty payback against nurses, teachers, cops and firefighters. All this special election did was force counties to waste more money on a frivolous ballot measures. All of this nonsense could have waited six months or so for the next regular statewide election.

Butte County hasn’t been paid back for the recall election. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Schwarzenegger to reimburse counties for the cost of this election.

It’s all too bad, really. Schwarzenegger came into office promising a fresh start. He could have shown independence and leadership. Three broken promises. Three strikes and you're out.

But he also came in realizing running for California Governor is one thing, actually governing is something else. He was never up to it, so he threw in with the Republican right-wing.

Most of Schwarzenegger’s ballot agenda was a test run for the right-wing’s anti-government agenda. Schwarzenegger, the movie star, is a tool, and he got used.

So, congrats to California Democrats and those Republicans who helped deep-six this nonsense. Congrats to the Alliance for a Better California, the umbrella organization that spearheaded the fight and won a clean sweep of the Schwarzenegger six.

Congrats to all the Chico and Butte County Democrats who wrote letters and otherwise worked for the defeat of Schwarzenegger’s agenda. Now the stage is set for ousting Schwarzenegger from office next year.

He’s already talking about making more movies next year even as he serves his masters on the extreme right. It is up to all of us to keep his poll numbers in the 30’s.

Best of all, liberals/progressives spoke loudly and clearly against these propositions, and California voters were motivated to come to the polls and defeat them.

We should celebrate for all of one day, and then get back to work.

--Drzal

Chico City Plaza

2005-11-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

City Plaza is a city block of wasteland these days. I drove by the other day and thought it looked like someone had done surgery on the heart of downtown. Big trucks going in and out. Most of the trees gone now. The diagonal walkways gone, (for now). And the gazebo is gone.

Downtown on a ventilator.

I like gazebos. I even thought about building one in the back of my house, and I still might do it. More about that in a bit.

I heard that the elm trees planted back around the turn of the century just got old and tired and died. I know some of the Plaza trees were topped in the early 80's, and certainly didn't help the trees. The Parks Director, at the time, thinking about city liability, said it was O.K., but that was before cities hired people who actually knew something about trees, and called them urban foresters. Chico has a good one in Chris Boza.

I'll miss the gazebo. My understanding is that a fountain will replace the gazebo, and that a temporary platform will be set up if an event such as the concert series resumes. DNA, where are you?
The loss of the gazebo got me thinking about the gazebo at the end of The Green in the town where I grew up.

That's what they called the open space filled with trees and gazebos in the middle of town back east. The Green.

Imagine, for a moment, that the businesses in the blocks between Main and Broadway were leveled, and a bunch of City Plazas were stuck on each block, say from Fourth Street all the way down to Eighth or Ninth Street, where Chico Natural Foods is located.

That's about the length of the Green in New Milford, Conn. Several streets intersect the Green just as Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and so on connect Main and Broadway. The green had a lot of big maples and, I think, some oak and other shade trees.

Down on the end of the Green was a statute of Roger Sherman, who hailed from New Milford, and did something in 1763, I think it was, that earned him a statute. Sherman was one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence.

When my father would drive into town every few days to buy cigars, he would park on the Green side of the street and cross over to cigar shop to get his cigars. He loved his cigars. He'd chew up the ends of the cigars more than he actually smoked them. I always thought that was a strange thing to do to a cigar, a strange pleasure in his life, but that’s what he did.

There was a big, old honking Army tank parked on the Green, a memorial to World War II. It had thick green paint on it. I'd go over and crawl around on the tank while my father was in the cigar store. I remember being amazed at the size of the barrel on that thing. But more often than not, I'd go over and sit inside the eight-sided gazebo, and thought the odd, octagonal shape was so cool. I'd just watch the people walk by, or the rain hitting the sidewalk. I don't even think Kennedy was President yet.

So, the gazebo's out and the fountain are in. That'll be all right, I think. I see from the city's literature that a fountain was considered or installed in the center of the plaza right around the turn of the century. A fountain is not a bad choice, in my book.

People will still have a good place to sit in the shade, either on grass or on benches. And there’s something tranquil about a fountain representing the spring of life.

Portland has a neat fountain on the waterfront; Seattle has an even better one at the Seattle Center, site of the Worlds Fair. The International Fountain was built for the Worlds Fair, and upgraded in 1995. It has dome-shaped center and a 200-foot bowl. It goes off every hour and is sometimes synchronized to music. Kids love to play in it.

Maybe our fountain will be large enough to wade in. Come to downtown for lunch or shopping. When you're done, strip to your shorts and take a dip in the Chico fountain. I would have been happy this summer if I could have gone to City Plaza and have the parking meter enforcement officer turn a garden hose on me or anyone else who requested a cool down.

I'm sure the reconstruction of City Plaza has moved many Chicoans to think back to where they've been, and how they've come to be where they are today.

I guess change is the one constant. It almost has to be: the patient will recover, but never be the same.

--Drzal

Nix 76

2005-11-01T18:47:00.000-08:00

I think the voters are going to nix the Schwarzenegger six, and a good place to start is with Proposition 76.

Supposedly, 76 is the centerpiece of the special election ballot, and for good reason: it is a double-edged sword that would consolidate budget power in the Governor’s office and gut the Prop 98 school funding guarantee.

This thing is a big-time power grab by somebody who has no business being Governor of the greatest state in the nation, let alone having the power to unilaterally cut spending above and beyond the line item veto.

It’s also an effort by national Republicans to transplant the same sort of cynical budgeting seen in Washington D.C. to Sacramento. The Republican cons have run up huge deficits by cutting taxes for the wealthy. This is the part of the plan they call, with smug self-satisfaction, “starving the beast.” Then they scream the country is running big deficits and can’t afford the spending, so, of course, vital programs essential to the social safety net must go.

The temptation is to get all wonky on you and try to decipher and explain the various provisions of 76. I’ve read a lot of analysis, and I’ll post links so you can check it out yourself.

First and foremost, the measure would give the Governor and his finance appointees the power to “interpret” cash flow and declare a fiscal emergency whenever revenues dip 1.5 percent. Then the Governor can go well beyond his line item veto power and cut spending virtually anywhere. And the power is absolute: The Legislature can’t override any of his cuts.

The measure would also require budgets to reflect the revenues of the previous three years. So, as the California Budget Project notes, spending is cut during an economic downturn, and can’t rise when the economy recovers. Check this out:

“If Proposition 76 had been enacted in 1990, for example, allowable 2005-06 spending would be $12.6 billion below the level in the budget signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger and $7.8 billion below anticipated 2005-06 revenues. Reductions needed to reach the allowed spending level under this scenario
would exceed 2005-06 General Fund spending for Higher Education ($10.2 billion) or combined General Fund spending for Business, Transportation, and Housing; Resources; Environmental Protection; and Social Services ($11.8 billion).”

Currently, K-14 spending is tied to enrollment growth and the state’s economy. 76 unties that link.

If the state were to spend more than the minimum guaranteed under Prop 98, the added funding would not be added to the base calculation made every year. Worse, Schwarzenegger wants to spread out repayment of the $3.4 billion he took from schools over 15 years. That’s about $600 per pupil. Finally, he wants to strip the IOU from the base calculation, costing schools $3.4 billion every year, or about $60 billion of guaranteed funding over the 15-year period.

John Meyers of the blog, Capitol Notes, has a couple of nice reads on Prop 76 here and here. California Budget Project reports on the issue are here and here. Finally, if you really want to hurt your brain, you can read the text of the measure at the Secretary of State’s Special Election page.

Save yourself the trouble. 76 is a turkey.

--Drzal

Scalito

2005-10-31T18:57:00.000-08:00

I’ll say one thing about Samuel Alito: we know where he’s coming from. I had ranted loudly about the lack of examination of John Roberts, who had served as a judge for less than two years, and I knew the low standard of disclosure set by Roberts would apply to the next stealth nominee, Harriet Miers.

I can’t say if it was too bad Bush’s right wing blew Miers out of the water. I know about as much about her judicial philosophy as I do Roberts' philosophy, which is still nothing. But we do know something about Alito. He’s been a judge for 15 years, and has issued dissents and rulings that tell us a lot about his judicial philosophy.

Now, the right, the middle and the left can debate the kind of Supreme Court justice Alito might be, and if he would be good for the country. Why shouldn’t the country know what it’s getting when someone takes such an important post in our government? Why shouldn’t that standard apply to John Roberts or any other Supreme Court nominee?

Earlier I had posted that Bush had no choice but to name a right wing judge to the Supreme Court to make nice with his conservative base. Bush had to throw the red meat to the wolves on the right because he can’t fight the Democrats on this nominee or any nominee. The idea that Bush would put the country ahead of the right wing was foolhardy to begin with because he has no choice but to have the right wing fight this fight for him if his nominee is to have any chance at all. They will be ready. So will we.

Already, they’re calling the nominee “Scalito” because his rulings are right in the mold of Antonin Scalia. I’ve even heard some analysts say he might be to the right of Scalia.

"Scalito" was the lone dissenting voice in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Pennsylvania case that the Supreme Court used to uphold Roe v. Wade by a single vote. Justice O’Conner cast that vote. Scalito would replace O’Connor.

What did Scalito say in his dissent in Casey (while on the Philadelphia appeals court)?

That a woman must notify her husband if she wished to obtain an abortion.

I wonder who would be checking to see if the woman had complied with the notification requirement. Maybe some agency will come up with a form for her to fill out. Then she can show it to her husband or boyfriend, who has been beating the crap out of her. Hey, there's a governmental program the Rapture Right would be happy to support.

Forget about going back to 1920. These dim bulbs are headed back to the Middle Ages.

--Drzal

(cross posted at the E-R's NorCal Blogs)

Libby

2005-10-29T14:39:00.000-07:00

I like Patrick Fitzgerald. I like the way he handled himself during the press conference. I like that he reminded us that patience and a willingness to let the justice system play itself out is a sound position to take right now.

We have to presume Libby is innocent until proven guilty. We must try to give the presumption as much as we loathe Libby for his reckless vendetta that has breached the security of our country and endangered the safety of a woman who had given 20 years of her life in service of the safety of all of us.

I wouldn't worry too much about Libby: he'll either fall on his sword for Cheney or Bush will pardon him. He's not going to pay a tenth the price Valerie Plame has paid.

Like you, I'm wondering who else will be indicted. Remember, Novak said in his column he had "two senior administration sources," and indications are Libby was not one of them.

That means there are still at least two rats left in the nest. We know who one of them is.

If Rove is indicted for treason, I will want to rethink my opposition to the death penalty.

--Drzal

Fitzmas Eve

2005-10-27T16:25:00.000-07:00

To all the good liberals and progessives in the North Valley, California and the U.S.:

Have a happy Fiztmas Eve.

--Drzal

Enloe and the Union

2005-10-27T16:00:00.000-07:00

A while back, in a former life, a debate between a few of us reporters cropped up over the use and meaning of a word. Actually it was phrase. This is something that happens every now and then, usually when reporters want to show each other how smart they are. Sometimes it happens when they’re sitting around and waiting for a source to return their call.

The phrase doesn’t matter. But I distinctly remember saying, “let’s look it up in the dictionary.” We did, and the dictionary proved me correct.

“I don’t care what the dictionary says,” the other reporter sniffed and turned away, ending the conversation.

All right then.

I was reminded of all this the other day when I read Enloe still refuses to recognize the Health Care Worker Union of the Service Employees International Union as the exclusive bargaining unit for about 600 service workers at Enloe.

Larry Mitchell reported the Enloe stance in the Enterprise-Record:

"All we are asking for is a new, fair election," stated a letter the Chico hospital distributed to its employees Tuesday. "We stand ready to revote today. If the union would request a new election, the question (emphasis added)of whether the SEIU will ultimately represent about 600 Enloe employees could be decided quickly, said Carol Linscheid, the hospital's director of human resources.”

Whoa, Whoa. What question?

The question is settled. There is no question. SEIU represents the service workers because an authority no less than the National Labor Relations Board says so.

“Finally, we adopt, for the reasons stated by the judge, his overruling of the Respondent’s election objections. We, therefore, certify the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the service unit.” - National Labor Relations Board

Remember, the 2004 employee election was held to determine if Enloe workers would organize into three separate bargaining units: service workers, clerical workers and technical workers. Enloe and SEIU contested the elections on various grounds and took the whole thing to an administrative law judge.

Administrative law judges are not partisan hacks predisposed to favor one side over the other. They hold hearings, call witnesses, apply the proper standard for which to weigh the evidence, and they make a ruling. And, the ruling can be appealed. This is stuff everybody knows. Everybody but Enloe, apparently.

The judge shot down a few union appeals. One was that Enloe had employees under surveillance during the vote. When the vote in the business office clerical unit election tied 64-64, the certification vote failed and Enloe withdrew its appeal to that election.

The service unit election vote was close: 263- 245 for the union. There was some dispute over the color of ballots, but the judge found the election was valid and recommended the NLRB certify the vote. Enloe appealed. Fair enough.

In late August, The NLRB board upheld the judge on the service worker appeal and certified the vote.

If Enloe feels it has been wronged after two levels of appeal, then take the NLRB to court(if that is an avenue that is available. It might not be).

What is sad to see someone who has served the community well for many years resort to this kind of nonsense, as reported in the E-R:

“Manuel Esteban, a member of the Enloe Medical Center Board of Trustees, said the panel held a special meeting last week and discussed the issue at length. In the end, they voted unanimously not to bargain, he said. "It's not that the board is anti-union," he said. "We felt to ensure that everybody is more or less satisfied, we need to have a new election."

Esteban must have been drinking the anti-union Kool-Aid at the meeting because everyone knows Enloe is virulently anti-union. Has been ever since the corporatists took control of the hospital from local administrators several years ago.

So Enloe won’t bargain. The union will file an unfair labor practices charge – and probably win. Enloe will probably go the court.

Drag it out. Fight to the end. Spend more money on attorneys. Keep everyone at each other’s throats. Even when you win two of the three certification votes, don’t accept the one union that did survive.

This matters because 50 cents of every health care dollar is spent on something other than health care. You know, big salaries for the CEO, public opinion surveys, or television commercials during the local news. Heck, I saw dueling Redding hospital commercials during the local news the other night. In the meantime, higher employee contributions for health insurance are stealing from pay increases, co-pays rise, the number of uninsured rise every year, and a half million California children go without health insurance.

That’s right. 50 cents out of every damned buck. This is how they do it.

--Drzal

(cross-posted at the Chico Enterprise-Record NorCal blogs)

Harriet Who?

2005-10-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

Update:

Miers is gone, and her departure proves Bush is so incredibly weak that he can’t even fight the extreme wingnuts in his own party, let alone fight the Democrats.

It wasn’t the documents that did her in. It was Dobson.

Where was Miers' up or down vote? Hah.

Let's see if the frontman for Cheney's cabal has the nerve to nominate an extremist to the liking of the far right. I can see it all now:

The nutjobs will demand no serious examination of the new nominee, as long as he/she passes their religious litmus test, and they’ll scream “up or down vote” the second Democrats voice concerns about the judicial philosophy of the nominee.

Pathetic hypocrites.

Let the fight begin.

--Drzal

Update:

The Enterprise-Record gets this one right:

"Maybe the president should rethink his choice of a high-court nominee. He needs to look beyond his political cronies and choose a person who knows the law."

The full editorial is here.

--Drzal

Update:

Latest on Miers: Robertson Fatwa; religious litmus test; rampant hypocrisy

It wasn’t that long ago when we heard Judge John Roberts’ religion was off-limits. It was a “big mistake” to bring up Roberts’ religion. Roberts is a Catholic.

Now, with Bush is deep trouble with the wingnut right, religious and otherwise, the White House is pushing Harriet Miers as a conservative Christian, and hoping the wingnuts will read the code that she is anti-abortion, and will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Total. Total. Hypocrisy.

To inject Miers’ religion into the confirmation process, just to mollify a base that feels betrayed, is to inject a veiled litmus test into the process. To come so soon after Roberts is just astounding, and just goes to prove just how hypocritical Republicans are, and how stupid they believe their voter base is.

Just last week, one scary right wing religious extremist, James Dobson, said he knew things about Miers that he couldn’t disclose. Now, he’s saying he talked to the country’s foremost traitor, Karl Rove, and learned she is anti-abortion.

You have to wonder what else Dobson knows, and isn’t talking about. Maybe a subpoena would open his mouth.

As if this wasn’t enough garbage for one day, Pat Robertson, who appears more mentally unbalanced every time he opens his mouth, has issued another fatwa, this time against Republicans Senators who oppose Miers’ nomination.

“Now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president, and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation? Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office”– Pat Robertson

Robertson likes to order assassinations, political or otherwise. Not too long ago, he called for the murder of a foreign leader, then backed off and called for his kidnapping. Playing American terrorist must appeal to Robertson.

What a crew.

--Drzal

Update:

Conservatives turning on Bush in droves. Buchannan, Kristol and others are all blowing cold on Miers. Brrrrrrrrrrr.

The feeding frenzy won't let up until Bush withdraws her nomination. I say Miers is gone before she gets a hearing.

--Drzal

Update:

California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer play nice on the Harriet Miers nomination, here(pdf) and here.

Rick Silva of the Paradise Post can't bring himself to criticize Dear Leader for a bungled Supreme Court pick:

He did it again. President Bush has given us a "Who is that again?" pick for the Supreme Court. Bush has chosen a relative unknown to the highest bench in Harriet Miers. Once again, like the John Roberts nomination, few have a clue as to what she thinks. Bush did fill the seat with another woman, but what kind of judge will she make?She has conservatives worried and liberals in the dark. While Bush is trying to avoid a huge fight by choosing an unknown, he's infuriating pro-life conservatives who wanted a pick they could hang their hats on. It seems to those voters that Bush won the election and promised to pick judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It's unclear to the nation if he's done so. Not only does the Miers pick leave liberals in the dark, but it also puts conservatives in the uncomfortable position of having to fight for an unknown. They don't want any repeats of Judge Kennedy or Judge Souter, and the Miers choice doesn't assuage those fears. It only amplifies them. It's possible Miers might take as much heat from Sen. Sam Brownback as she will from Sen. Ted Kennedy.

These conservatives aren't playing so nice.

Her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent . . . Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered. -Pat Buchannan in National Conservative Weekly

Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush's inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field. - National Review

A very pro-Bush legal type says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. - Rob Dreher in the National Review

Dreher may have been wrong. She may have passed law review.

Best line so far: If Bush wanted "strict constructionist" judges on the Supreme Court, then why does he say the models for his nominees are Scalia and Thomas. Both have voted many times in recent years to overturn laws approved by Congress. You know, the legislative branch elected by the people.

You have a pair of activist judges in those two, folks.

--Drzal

Update:

Harriet Miers, White House Counsel and long, long time country club crony. Said Bush was the most brilliant man she ever met. Oh boy.....

There is major freakout going on over in the wingnut blogosphere. This is typical:

"Section9Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:27 am. About 'Miers'.
As I said on RedState, the worst kind of squalid cronyism. Abe Fortas in a dress."

A winger with a sense of humor is a thing to behold.

--Drzal

Stealth candidate #2, that's who.

Unlike Judge Roberts, Bush goes to his bench this time and finds another loyal unmarried woman who followed him from Texas to Washington.

With Roberts setting the bar for disclosure down around our ankles, count on Harriet to evade even the most basic questions about her judicial philosophy.

Oh. Wait. She doesn't have one. She's never been a judge.

--Drzal

Sloan

2005-10-26T18:31:00.000-07:00

Word comes from the Chico News & Review that the Grand Jury is still interested in the Jeff Sloan imbroglio. Just when everyone thought the Sloan controversy was over, we find it ain’t over. Nothing ever seems to be over at D-O, as in District Office of the Chico Unified School District.

If you think the table was cleared of at least one headache before new Superintendent Chet Francisco took over for Scott Brown, think again.

So Francisco gets an early test: how does the district respond to the news the newly-seated Grand Jury is still interested in the Sloan matter, and how does Francisco respond to Sloan’s very vocal supporters. Let’s call it Francisco’s CUSD Entrance Exam.

What caught my attention in the CN&R editorial on Sloan and the Grand Jury was this:

“Sloan has many outstanding qualities, particularly how he can build a stand-out school from scratch, rally dedicated supporters and win the admiration of students and parents. With that track record, he could stick around in Chico hoping to return to his former glory in the CUSD, or he could take his talents elsewhere.”

High praise, and I thought it was about right. But then a chill wind blew forth from 2nd and Wall…

“We suggest Sloan swallow his ego and go elsewhere.”

That’s a serious slap considering Sloan hasn’t been shown to have done anything illegal. It seems to suggest the CN&R thinks Sloan is hawking a sob story to the Grand Jury. I couldn’t find anything in the CN&R suggesting Sloan is trying to backdoor Francisco and the school board. Maybe the CN&R is holding back on info showing Sloan or, more likely, one of his vocal supporters is going to the Grand Jury again in order to test Francisco. (It needs to be said that sometimes a new Grand Jury will revive unfinished business of the outgoing Grand Jury. CUSD punked the outgoing Jury on the Sloan matter.)

I won’t try to rehash the entire Sloan fiasco, which had its genesis at least five years ago. In fact, Sloan was rubbing people the wrong way before Scott Brown showed up. But, failing to tame the teacher’s union, Brown and/or the Schofield school board, probably both, decided they were no longer going to tolerate Sloan and his maverick ways.

Through it all, the worst rap anyone could pin on Sloan was that he was a shameless self-promoter. I don’t think shameless is right, but Sloan was without question a promoter of Marsh Junior High and, a lot of people felt, of himself.

But, in a way, they were wrong. Sloan understood the value of good publicity for the school. He understood how teachers and students enjoyed the community spotlight when the school was recognized for a job well done. Marsh was a leader in reading, test scores, and parents liked the idea of sending their kids to a shiny new school as opposed to the oppressive Chico Junior High School.

Of course, Bidwell and Chico Junior weren’t getting the same publicity as Marsh, and complained about it. So, what did D-O do? Rather than urge Bidwell and Chico Junior to do a better job of reaching out to the community, D-O told Sloan to cool it. In effect, D-O achieved parity among the three junior high schools by knocking Marsh down to the level of the other two schools.

As far as I can tell, Sloan went well outside the box when it came to promoting Marsh with students and parents. Sloan didn’t mishandle student fees. D-O tried hard to create the impression something like that was happening. But the Grand Jury said procedures for handling student money at Marsh were no different that the procedures used at other schools. If there had been serious wrong doing, Sloan would have not been simply demoted to another school. He would have been fired, and possibly prosecuted for embezzlement.

In fact, at least one trustee, to his credit, has apologized for the way Sloan was treated by the district. The entire matter was a significant factor in easing Brown out the door.

For that, Sloan deserves a medal.

So, let us turn now to the Chet Francisco CUSD Entrance Exam:

1) As the new Superintendent of the Chico Unified School District, you are
faced with unending controversy surrounding the demotion of a popular junior high school principal. You:

a) Sell the new Chico residence at a profit and take the first bus out of town
b) Take a crash course in disaster management from the Scott Brown School for School District Superintendents
c) Announce the school district’s Strategic Plan is hopelessly outdated. Convene a new group of community leaders, hold secret sessions, and discuss the job performance of junior high school principals with 20 or 30 non-district people
d) Return Sloan to his old post of principal, if not at Marsh, then at one of Chico’s 20-odd schools

Reinstating Sloan to a position of campus chief is the one answer that ends the Sloan debacle. It earns the district some goodwill, and shows Francisco is a serious break from the recent past.

Of course, it is the one thing Francisco will not do.

Heck, it’s only a one-question exam and, like high school juniors and seniors, he’ll get several cracks at passing the thing. Too bad he doesn’t go for it, and pass the Entrance Exam now while the answer is, really, a no-brainer.

(cross posted at the Enterprise-Record's NorCal blogs)

--Drzal

Blogging at the Enterprise-Record

2005-10-23T15:55:00.000-07:00

Just a heads up. I’ll be blogging at the Chico Enterprise-Record starting next week. As much as they love tradition at the E-R – they’ve been doing it one way for 150 years – the paper is starting some blogs. I think they’ve figured they had better get on the technology train before it completely leaves the station.

Funny, I don’t know how this happened; the E-R blog is also called NorCal Progressive, the name of this blog. The E-R blog should be up Tuesday, the 24th. The URL is www.norcalblogs.com/norcalprogressive. I’ll make sure the link is working when the site is officially up and running.

I’m the progressive blogger. I know there will be a conservative blogger, and at least two other blogs on subjects other than politics. I’ll have a kind of welcome post over there, and it should be up, like I said, on Tuesday.

How did he get to be the progressive blogger, you might ask. Was it the insightful, titillating, delightful and mind-bending writing found at NorCal Progressive for the last six weeks?

Nah, it wasn’t that. I know E-R editor David Little. I ran into David a while back and asked him if he had checked out the blogosphere. I could tell by his look that he thought I was “out there” somewhere in the ether of the cyber world. But I told him to check out Kos or Talking Points Memo. I think he must have, because the next time I saw him, he was much more receptive to starting blogs at the newspaper. Some other papers in the Media News chain had also launched blogs, so I’m sure that was a factor.

So, we sat down for a while, and I chatted up David on why blogs are the coming revolution in expression, and how blogs extend themselves to everybody who cares to share a thought or opinion. Anyone can “opine,” as the chief joker himself put it.

I told David there is so much freedom in the blog world that he wouldn’t even have to concern himself with editing the blogs. Just let’em rip, I said.

A look of horror crossed David’s face. Editors aren’t receptive to the idea that they aren’t needed.

So, that, I think will be David’s test: Let the cyber world roil, even when his instincts say, “Enough children, back to your rooms.”

My test will be to keep it fresh and interesting, ignite enough of a spark so that readers will want to weigh in with their own rant. That’s what I’m interested in.

--Drzal

Miller Hard Time

2005-10-23T15:51:00.000-07:00

UPDATE:

More questions for Judy:

If Scooter’s girl Judy couldn’t remember the name of the source for “Valerie Flame,” why didn’t she just say so in front of the Grand Jury. Why, then, go to jail for 85 days?

Where was Judy Miller in August, 2002 when the the campaign to convince the country of an impending threat of WMD in Iraq was in full bore?

This we know for sure: Cheney’s boy Scooter was feeding his girl Judy stories about WMD which ran on the front page of the New Pravda Times. The same garbage then was quoted by Cheney on the Sunday morning TV talk fests: "Weapons of mass destruction? Hey, look it's on the front page 0f the Times."

One thing you can say about this cabal: It had a nice symmetry to it.

--Drzal

It’s Sunday morning. Woke up, feeling great. Then I opened the paper, and it went all downhill from there. Toward the back of the A-section, I found a story on Judy Miller’s self-serving account in the New York Times - make that the New Pravda Times - about her role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

I was feeling sick, and it wasn’t the coffee or the muffins.

By now you know a special federal investigator is trying to find out who in the Bush Administration outed Plame, the wife of a critic who was one of the first to put to the lie Bush’s claims of WMD in Iraq, to Robert Novak, Washington pundit and zombie movie escapee.

The mistress of propaganda wrote in the Times that she talked to Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, three times before Novak outed Plame. Novak said “two administration officials” had named her as a covert CIA agent.

She told the Grand Jury investigating the matter that she wrote the name Valerie “Flame” and Victoria Wilson(husband is Joe Wilson) in her notes on the days she talked to Libby. But she claims the names were written in different sections of her notes, leading her to think that maybe, just maybe, a different source gave her the name. Miller claims she can’t recall the source of the oh-so-close versions of Plame’s name.

However, under the deal she reached with the special prosecutor to get out of jail, the special prosecutor agreed to question her only about her conversations with Libby. So, now questions about how the names got into her notebook are out of bounds.

Oh, how convenient.

The reason the names are central to the investigation is because the statute prohibits “naming” of a covert CIA operative. Remember what Bush the elder said about divulging the identities of CIA covert operatives:

“those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors.” - George H. W. Bush

Miller went to jail for 85 days after she refused to testify before the Grand Jury. She agreed to testify last week after Libby released her from a promise of confidentiality. Miller said she was protecting a source. But Miller had the same release from Libby when she was first called to testify. So why did she decide to jail-bird it for 85 days?

There have always been questions about Miller and her journalistic ethics. She was clearly a Libby conduit to the public through one of the most influential newspapers in the country. Libby fed her Chalabi, the Iraqi/Iranian spy, and Miller printed his fabrications without checking them for accuracy, or veracity. Miller printed the Administration’s lies about WMD in the lead-up to the war, without questioning those lies.

Here’s what a reporter for a leading U.S. newspaper said about her journalistic obligations to the public: She said her job is to report what officials in the White House told her and not concern herself with the truth of what they said.

85 days was a start, but it wasn’t long enough.

Judy Miller deserves to rot in jail.

--Drzal

Dump Doolittle

2005-10-18T18:51:00.000-07:00

Keeping an eye on conservative nutjob Rep. John Doolittle has to be a little like throwing sanity and sobriety to the wind. But the folks over at Dump Doolittle are up to the task. Give 'em a look, and a "thata boy."

--Drzal

Herger's Dirty Money

2005-10-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

One Northeastern Republican doesn't want anything to do with indicted Republican leader Tom DeLay's money. Republican Jeb Bradley is returning $15,000 donated to him by Delay's political action committee.

Writing in the Chico Enterprise-Record, Rolland Hauser of Chico wonders if Rep. Wally Herger of Northern California took any DeLay money?

"These are questions this constituent wants answered straightforwardly. No beating around the bush. The ethical question should not be too tough for Herger to handle."

Oh, Herger sure did take money from Delay. In fact, he gave better than he got. According to Federal Elections Commissions records, Herger received $1,105 from DeLay's PAC. Of even more interest, Herger gave $6,000 to DeLay's legal defense fund. Let's go to the DeLay political thuggery highlight reel:

Used corporate money given to his PAC to finance Texas campaigns in violation of state law (latest indictment).
Accepted trips from corporations and later helped kill legislation they opposed.
Accepted trips from the lobbyist for a foreign government in violation of House rules.
Paid family members more than $500,000 out of campaign contributions.
Helped sweatshops in the Mariana Islands at the behest of a lobbyist.
Promised a role in drafting legislation to a corporate donor.
Tried to coerce a Congressman for a vote on Medicare.
Used Homeland Security resources in a dispute with Democrats in Texas.
Diverted funds from a children's charity for lavish celebrations at the Republican convention.
Threatened retaliation against interest groups that don't support Republicans.
Stacked the House Ethics Committee with representatives who have contributed to his legal defense fund.
Crippled the effectiveness of the House Ethics Committee by purging members who had rebuked him.
Pushed for a rules change for the House Ethics process that paralyzed the panel.
Sought a rule change that would have no longer "required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Fellow right winger Rep. John Doolittle was the only California congressman to give DeLay more money. He chipped in $10,000. Source: Political Campaign Action Fund

Don't worry about that $6,000 Herger gave DeLay. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the $392,000 special interests gave Herger, who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Herger will fret more over the answer he owes Hauser than the $6-grand he donated to the culture of corruption run amok in our once-proud nation's Capitol.

--Drzal

Shame Indeed

2005-10-08T16:01:00.000-07:00

Shouts of "Shame, Shame, Shame" railed the walls of the House of Representatives as Republicans held a five minute vote open for 45 minutes to win passage of an energy bill headed for certain defeat. Thank God for Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco:

"What you saw on the House floor this afternoon was a shameless display of the Republican culture of corruption, as it exists in the House of Representatives. It demonstrated once again that the Republican majority will go to any length to satisfy the greed of the energy companies over meeting the needs of the American people.
"A vote that was supposed to take five minutes took more than nine times that long because the indicted Republican leader of the House of Representatives needed extra time to twist the arms necessary to pass a bill that is against the interests of the American people, against consumers, against taxpayers, and against the environment.
"The fact that the Republicans are handmaidens of the special interests is nothing new. The fact that they would shamelessly display their servitude should come as no surprise. But today's extortion is an especially shameful display - a sad day for democracy. The people spoke and the vote was clearly against this bill.
"How long will the Republican caucus condone this behavior? Until the rank-and-file Members break with the culture of corruption, they are all complicit and they all enable. The American people must object."

Can someone explain how Wally Herger can pass himself off as a religious, moral man in the northstate and participate in these anti-American, anti-democratic charades in Washington D.C.?

Answer: It is nothing more than pure, blatant, bald-faced hypocrisy.

According to the Washington Post, energy conglomerates like ExxonMobile and Chevron Texaco booked astronomical profits for 2004. ExxonMobile profits rose to a staggering $25 billion. Some of these profits were made by constraining oil refinery capacity. So, while the public is getting fleeced at the pump, Big Oil is getting billions in tax breaks in sweetheart deals from their Republican allies.

Herger was out with a press release soon after the vote saying the legislation would "encourage" the building of refineries. That's the best he could come up with because lawmakers on both sides know the law does nothing to bring down high gas prices.

But it did have a provision that would require taxpayers to pay a refinery's legal bill if it is vindicated in court. Herger voted for that, but you won't find that in his press release.

Herger has already sold out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I predict a sell out of California's coastal waters is next. I'm amazed at how Herger can happy-face and glad-hand his way around the district, and get away with these votes.

--Drzal

D.C. Dems duck Iraq

2005-10-08T15:11:00.000-07:00

Short, sweet and to the point. Chris Bowers, one of the best left bloggers on the Web, has the lowdown on greasy-fingered Democrats dropping the Iraq ball.

"I have never seen Democrats have an election potentially handed to them on a platter like this before. When it comes to the number one issue in the country, the majority Democratic position enjoys overwhelming national support, including more than a two-to-one margin among Independents, and a big fat wedge right down the middle of the Republican coalition. And yet, somehow, we still refuse to mention Iraq, much less stand up for this position.
It can hardly be more frustrating to continuously work to support a party that carries your hopes and dreams for government not only refuse to stand up for what its members believe in, but actively discard such an amazing chance to retake control of Washington."

I think there is a time to sit back and let the conservatives twist in the wind on the Iraq. It IS their mess. But that time is rapidly passing, and Democratic Party runs the great risk of being accused of pandering to the voters should it finally take a strong stand against the war.

--Drzal

Dem Changes

2005-10-07T16:49:00.000-07:00

California Democratic Party leaders are riffing on changes to the party by-laws that remind me of the serious riffing Hendrix performed on "Them Changes" some three decades ago. Party leaders pulled out one building block of the party foundation and tried to slip in another quick so the structure wouldn't teeter.

Of course, Democrats felt the wobble. Some rural Democrats think the state party hacked out a crucial link between local Democratic activists and clubs. Overboard. Overkill. You name it. Cue up Jimi, Billy Cox and Buddy Miles, and get ready to wrap your mind around "Machine Gun."

But other Democrats think the changes were necessary to keep the party from getting in trouble with McCain-Feingold, the federal campaign finance law. Some of these people are not worried that a key avenue of communication between the grassroots and the state party has been cut off. From the old California Democratic Party by-laws:

"The Assembly District Committee is the basic organizational unit of the California Democratic Party. Assembly District Committees are sanctioned committees representing Assembly Districts serving as nominators to the Democratic State Central Committee."

That building block is gone now. The executive committee of the Democratic State Central Central committee (governing body of the California Democratic Party) revised the by-laws this past weekend to abolish Assembly District(AD) committee procedures. Something called Assembly District Election Meetings will take the place of AD Committee meetings, and, as in the past, 12 delegates to the state party from each Assembly District will still be elected in caucuses around the state every two years. Changes take effect in 2007.

It starts to get fuzzy because the state party apparently will turn to chartered Democratic organizations - limited to just one per Assembly District - to take over some portion of the role the AD committees played. I say apparently because no one I've talked to seems to know for sure.

There are plenty of chartered Democratic Clubs around the state. Democratic Action Club of Chico is one. But I'm told these clubs won't be allowed to become the solitary chartered organization for the Assembly District. It will be a new organization, with new officers.

Enid Cox of Oroville, chair of the committee for the 3rd Assembly District, said via e-mail that the chartered organizations aren't needed.

"In my opinion, the new chartered organizations will duplicate current purposes and efforts of Clubs and Central Committees and not cover the current purposes of AD Committees as well as be a waste of money and effort. I can not see why anyone would want to charter them."

Ostensibly, the state party moved away from Assembly District meetings as a way of establishing an "arm's length" distance away from the local organization. McCain-Feingold apparently restricts funding and control the state party can have over local groups.

Chico Democrat Roberts Braden doesn't like the changes either, and presented an alternative to the executive board, but it wasn't accepted. But he hopes to take a lemon and make lemonade.

"Here in the 3rd Assembly District we will, I hope, act quickly to form a new alliance to represent the AD. Such a group would be eligible to be chartered by the California Democratic Party and yet be able to remain at arms length from the party in financial matters that might get the Party crosswise with the McCain Feingold law.I proposed an alternative solution which I still believe was better than the By-Laws change, but that is water under the bridge. We will take this lemon and make some lemonade."

Apparently, it is hoped the rules changes will foster competition among Democratic activists for the right to become the single state party-sanctioned Democratic organization for each district. That would make for interesting discussions in Chico where the Democratic left is scattered among the Bob Mulholland Democrats, some Greens, and the rest of Chico's Democrats.

Via e-mail, Berkeley Democrat Matt Lockshin said the changes in the by-laws will require local Democrats to get to work on organizing and turning out their supporters at the biennial elections.

"The stronger your grassroots presence, in terms of numbers (as opposed to money or connections to the CDP), the more likely that you and your cohorts will be in control. So the balance of power basically hangs upon who can most effectively turn out the largest number of registered Dems to the meeting at which you'll elect your AD reps to the DSCC and the meeting where officers will be elected to the new chartered organization(emphasis mine.)"

Lockshin goes on to say the state party should not do anything to prejudge whether the balance of power will tip toward party progressives or business/centrist Dems. "If you don't have the votes to win, no democratic system should allow you to win," he said.

Of course, it goes without saying, that the 3rd Assembly District is far more than just Chico. It'll be interesting to see Democrats from across the district caucusing to not only to elect delegates to the state party, but also elect officers to that one newly-chartered organization that will assume, apparently, most of the functions of the soon-to-be abolished Assembly District Committees.

What does it all mean?

My bottom line is that I don't want to see the state Democratic Party continue to neglect of the grassroots, which occurs only because Dem legislative majorities are assured through badly gerrymandered districts. It seems top Democrats are only interested in statewide races, and the most concern is shown for the handpicked successor of a state wide office holder or a termed out lawmaker.

Democratic registration is declining. Democratic counties California numbered in the 40's not too long ago. Now the number is in the 20's. I wonder if Democratic Party has become soft because it concentrates almost exclusively on statewide partisan races. Could the party defend seats in districts if they were to suddenly become competitive after redistricting?

I believe absolutely in a 58 county strategy for California Democrats, and wish the state party would stop blowing cold on rural Democrats.

I have to respect the opinions of Roberts and Enid; they've been at it a lot longer than I have. However, if the fight for election of officers to the chartered organization is fair, and fought on level ground, then I don't have a problem with the changes to the by-laws.

This is a time where one can be proven right, or proven a dumb-ass.

--Drzal

Cal FEMA Director Update

2005-10-04T10:34:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about the acting director of FEMA for California, Arizona and a few other states and her lack of experience in managing a disaster, natural or man-made.

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein is also concerned with the qualifications of Karen Armes. The full press release is here.

“As the terrible destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina so vividly demonstrated, we cannot afford to wait until after disaster strikes to be prepared for the worst,” Senator Feinstein said. “FEMA’s regional vacancies are weakening the Federal government’s ability to marshal the full force of its resources to prepare, protect and provide recovery assistance in the event of a national emergency. I am particularly concerned about the people of the West Coast in FEMA Region 9, who are so vulnerable to the dangers of a
catastrophic earthquake or other disaster. By filling these critical regional vacancies, we can move one step closer to ensuring the safety of millions and the economic security of America’s major metropolitan areas.”

As I posted earlier, Armes thinks you had better be ready to find your own food, water, shelter and medicine for at least 72 hours after the disaster strikes. Even then, FEMA still might not show up.

This is what happens when right wing extremists who hate government take control of government.

--Drzal

Mike Johnson

2005-10-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

Democrat Mike Johnson will run against Wally Herger for the congressional seat stretching from Sutter to Siskiyou. The Democrats' goal nationally should be to challenge every Republican is every district. No Republican gets a pass. No exceptions. Mike and other Democratic candidates that may emerge are holding up our end in Northern California.

Here's a press release, via Chico_Left, about Johnson's Oct. 6 appearance at Chico State:

Michael "Mike" Johnson, visiting alumnus, politician, and candidate for the 2nd Congressional Assembly District of California, will present CSUC's Student Democratic Club's 2005 Choices for Change:Midterm Election Reason # 3 "What is a Progressive Democrat andsubtitled, What should Progressives Know?
This free event will takeplace in the BMU Room #314, 5:00 pm, Thursday, October 6th.Refreshments to follow. Event is open to all students. Donations are welcomed.
Johnson, 55, will draw the lines between the various dots to present a holistic picture of the future of the Democratic Party and how major but little-known foreign policy decisions of the Bush Administration are large challenges for America's future. Johnson, a Chico native, a Protestant, is a graduate of Pleasant Valley High School and Butte College. He is a fiery presenter, who will push political fence-sitters with the need to register and to vote in themidterm election. Utilizing his anthropology and history teaching skills plus political consulting, grant writing and GED examiningexpertise, Johnson brings a fresh perspective to representing Californians. According to his bio he advocates for a range of issues including:
• Pro Gun• Pro Choice• Pro Union• Pro Veteran• Pro Agriculture• Tuition- free state colleges and universities like we usedto have until the 1980's.
• Upgrade the North State highway system by putting freeways around the bottlenecks and widening heavily used stretches to fourlanes.
• Water storage: Build the Sites Reservoir and other dams proposed for the Westside in the Red Bank and Thomes-NewvilleProjects. Also build new reservoirs on one or more tributaries behind Oroville and Shasta dams.
• Maintain and improve levees and bypasses to avoid futureflood disasters.
• Protect our water from being taken by the SouthernCalifornia water interests!
• Balance the budget and reduce the national debt.• Single payer national health plan.
• Protect our Social Security and Medicare System.• Protect our workers, jobs and pensions.• Congressional oversight of EPA regulations and the endangered species list in order to curb excesses.
• National Forests: Resumption of timber sales and salvagelogging within a well thought out sustained policy, along with arigorous program of controlled burns to reduce fire danger. Strict enforcement of standard forestry practices.
• Create a national nuclear power plan which will enable us to build a safe and efficient system that will meet our power needs until other commercially viable alternatives are developed.
• Subsidize the development and implementation of alternative energy forms.
• Remove MTBE from our gasoline• Revamp the education system.• Reduce government regulations.• NAFTA and GATT should either be modified or abrogated.
The event is co-sponsored by CSUC's Political Science Department,Student Democratic Club, Phoenix Club- Re-entry Students, EnloeHospital Strikers, Democratic Action Club of Chico and the Shasta-Cascade Youth Democrats.
--Drzal

Angelides Smackdown

2005-10-01T18:37:00.000-07:00

State Treasurer Phil Anglides, a likely Democratic candidate for Governor in 2006, lowers the boom (pdf)on Schwarznegger for his cowardly veto of the same sex marriage bill passed by the Legislature.

I wonder how Schwarznegger looks his gay friends from his days in the gym in the eye.

My earlier posts on same sex marriage are here and here.

(via Kos and Swing State Project)

--Drzal

Herger/Pombo Fatwa against ESA

2005-09-30T17:34:00.000-07:00

If right-wing Rep. Richard Pombo of Stockton is the Jerry Fallwell of the property rights movement, then right-wing Rep. Wally Herger of Chico is the Pat Robertson of the crusade against the environment.

Together, they issued a fatwa against the Endangered Species Act this week. Pombo authored and rammed through committee in less than a week a horrific overhaul of the landmark 1973 law. Pombo is chipping away at ESA by making extinct the idea of protecting plants and animals threatened with extinction. Herger -- forever the legislative backbencher -- cosponsored the measure and dutifully voted for it.

Here are some of the most egregious threats to the ESA under Pombo:

Politicizes the use of science in decision making. Under the Pombo bill, the power to determine what the "best available" science is will be given to a political appointee -- the Secretary of the Interior. Science should be done by scientists, not politicians.

Repeals the protection of critical habitat. One thing we know about helping populations of endangered species recover is that you have to ensure they have a safe habitat -- not just enough to support the numbers that are there today, but enough to support a healthy, recovered population. Pombo's bill straight up repeals the critical habitat provision of the ESA, so species could be "protected" and still have no place to live and breed.

Eliminates the need to "look before you leap". Currently, if you want to do a project that could impact an endangered species, you have to consult with the government first to ensure that your project won't cause damage to that species. In other words, you have to look before you leap. Pombo's bill lets developers get around this by empowering the Secretary of the Interior to designate (unspecified) "alternative consultation procedures" for any type of project. So the Secretary can essentially set aside the ESA at will and replace it with any review process they wish.

Pays developers to follow the law. If it's been determined that a project will impact an endangered species, the government might tell the developer to set aside 20 aces as undeveloped habitat. Under Pombo, the government not only pays the developer for the land, but also pays the developer any profits foregoesoes by not developing the 20 acre setaside.

In a press release, Herger tried to claim some credit for one aspect of Pombo's assault on threatened and endangered plants and animals.

"It also includes a provision that would require the Secretary of the Interior to develop regulations to waive or streamline the ESA when human health, safety or property is threatened. This provision was modeled after Congressman Herger's H.R. 2779, the "Species Rescue Act," which was initially introduced after the tragic levee break that occurred in Arboga, south of Marysville, CA, in January 1997."

Herger also went to the floor of the House of Representatives and weaved a myth of failure based on a pair of high profile incidents involving controversies involving ESA and farmers and flood control.

"In 2001, a community of family farmers in the Klamath Basin of Northern California and Southern Oregon had their entire water supply shut off to prevent a perceived threat to two species of listed fish. Families, who for generations had worked the soil to produce food for our nation, were literally left high and dry. To add insult to injury, it was later determined that that decision was not scientifically justified.

Several years ago, a levee protecting one of the communities I represent had deteriorated, and the Army Corps of Engineers predicted that in the event of high water there would be a significant threat to human life. For nearly seven years local officials tried to repair that levee, Mr. Speaker, but those repairs were stymied because of the ESA. Those delays had tragic consequences. The levee DID break, just as the Corps predicted. Tragically, three people drown."

Of Course, it is widely known Feather and Sacramento River levees in the Yuba-Sutter area are at risk for failure not from the ESA but from the neglect of the little farmer districts charged with maintaining them. The Peach Tree Mall flood was the direct result of a lack of maintenance, and after years of litigation, the state paid victims millions of dollars. The maintenance didn't get done because the districts didn't want to pony up the money to pay for it.

Herger also draws a straight line between the three deaths and the Endangered Species Act, as if there were no other circumstances in between. I find it hard to believe the ESA is directly and only responsible for the fatalities, especially coming from a politician using those deaths in a press release claiming a political victory.

Up in Klamath, let's not forget that more than 20,000 migrating salmon perished when water was diverted from the river for farmers. So it's wrong, and misleading, to suggest only farmers suffered in the serious drought that had gripped the region.

For his part, Pombo is a wingnut of the first order. He became fixated on the ESA before he ran for Congress from the Stockton area 14 years ago. High Country News picks up the story.

He's been a passionate preacher in a white cowboy hat, bent on restoring to landowners the God-given rights torn from them by environmental zealots. His standard soundtrack has been all bombast against arrogant tree-huggers who want to turn family farms into lockups for endangered species.

Pombo wrote this passage in a book, none of it which was true. Makes for a good right wing, anti-environment mythology though.

Pombo has often said that his rage against environmentalists was sparked by a battle with the East Bay Regional Park District in the 1980s. The park district planned to open a hiking trail on an old railroad right-of-way that crossed the Pombo family ranch in the Diablo Range south of Altamont Pass.

"The park district sought this abandoned railroad right of way as a recreational trail through the property of two dozen local ranchers and that of my family," he wrote in his 1996 book This Land is Our Land, a brash credo on property rights and the evils of environmentalism. "We were very concerned that it would interfere with our ability to conduct business on our own property."

Pombo claimed the park district refused to fence the trail, police it or pick up trash, and that "viewshed" rules would have kept the ranchers from building new structures on their own land. All this, he wrote, and the park district refused to pay the ranchers a dime.

But none of this actually happened. The park district did propose a trail on the old rail line, but on a segment some 20 miles away, near San Francisco Bay. At that time, park district boundaries did not include the Pombo family land, Altamont Pass, or anything near it.

"The facts have been reported wrong," says Bob Doyle, the district's assistant general manager, "and it's become part of the robust history." - High Country News

Here's what the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times had to say about the bill.

The view over on the other side of the country isn't that much different. The Newark Star-Ledger editorial is here.
Yet another take from the Sarasota Hearld Tribune.

The Endangered Species Act has saved dozens of plants and animals from extinction. The bald eagle was saved and removed from the list. So was the California Sea Lion. ESA works, and we are all the better for it.

Pombo's bill is what needs to fade into oblivion.

--Drzal

GOPers Shun Arnold

2005-09-29T22:51:00.000-07:00

This report from the Gold Country shows why Schwarznegger's redistricting scheme is in deep, deep trouble. Arnold can't even round up support for Prop 77 from the Republican grass roots in a very Republican area of the northstate - Placer County. The Auburn Journal reports on the sorry mess.

To hear the Republicans talk, they are outraged - simply outraged - at the Democrats gerrymander of state legislative and congressional districts. The Democrats carved the state into a series of uncompetitive Assembly, State Senate and Congressional Districts that are so safe the lawmakers can pull any deal, shake down any contributor - do just about anything they want, and get away with it. Well, anybody but Duke Cunningham, but this is a Northern California blog, so I won't get into that fiasco here.

While the Democrats set aside majorities in both state houses and the congressional delegation for themselves, they generously guaranteed the Republicans enough votes to block passage of the budget and tax increases. Remember, the budget needs approval from two/thirds of the Assembly and Senate. If the Republicans hold more than a third of the seats - and are immune from Democratic challengers in those seats - they're as happy as they would be if they had pushed through another tax cut for the wealthy, or shipped another job overseas.

Ah, but a panel of retired judges redrawing fair and sensible district lines, that could be a problem. Republican strategist Josh Cook, who cut his political teeth in Chico, worries that fair and sensible districts would result in the loss of Republican seats in Sacramento.

Already trailing in the Field Poll, Prop 77 is headed, without Republican support, to a crashing defeat. Well, at least Arnold will take a hit. One of the six will be nixed. And if the other five go down, so does Schwarznegger, because his political future hinges on the special election. He can't win reelection next year if he is trounced in November.

Fine by me.

And apparently fine with all those Republican lawmakers sitting in all those safe seats.

Red Bluff Smears Feinstein

2005-09-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

The dim bulbs at the Red Bluff Daily News editorial page launched a mean-spirited smear against U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein the other day, calling her Judiciary Committee vote against Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts "an embarrassment."

The Daily News got all snippy because Feinstein, a moderate and centrist if there ever was one, performed her constitutional duty which requires her to examine a judicial nominee, and give consent if she believes that nominee deserves a lifetime appointment to the land's highest court. Of course, everyone knows Roberts ducked, dodged, weaved and avoided countless questions on the vital issues of the day. Of course, those Daily News dim bulbs could give a rat's ass about constitutional duty. Even while spouting Republican National committee talking points, the Daily News hedged their support of Roberts with the "probably" qualifier.

Although to many Senators, both Republican and Democrat, Judge Roberts is probably one of the best nominees for the court that the Senate has ever seen, Sen. Feinstein is too worried about his lack of a paper trail. Ironically, more than 70,000 papers on Roberts' work in the Reagan administration were released and his answers to questions of the committee were clear and concise. He said what he meant and meant what he said.

Feinstein said she knew nothing more about Roberts' views at the end of his confirmation hearing than she did at the start of the hearing. She did her duty to examine the nominee, and then decide if she could consent to Bush's choice. She voted no.

Now, God knows, there are many times when I wish Mrs. Feinstein would choose to spend more time with her grandchildren. Much more time. She can be so right on an issue one day, and entirely on the wrong side of an issue the next. As the Roberts nomination unfolded, when it was obvious he was a stealth candidate, and that his handlers weren't going to allow him to come clean with the American people, I wrote a letter to Mrs. Feinstein urging her to ask tough questions, and not settle for evasive responses. Of course, that's fine with the dim bulbs at the Daily News.

Three committee Democratic Senators went along with the Roberts charade. Thankfully, Mrs. Feinstein did not.

Roberts will likely be confirmed, but you, I and the Daily News do not know what we are getting. Roberts says he's not an ideologue. He doesn't look like one, or talk like one. But that means nothing, just as the 70,000 pages of his legal papers written many years ago mean nothing.

Roberts has been an appeals court judge for two years - with virtually no legal track record. He likely will sit on the Court for 30 years or more - long after you and I are dead. He'll assign to other judges the duty to write opinions on the crucial matters of the day: freedom of speech, separation of church of state, religion, speech, and privacy. Can you imagine Roberts assigning to the wildly extreme Justice Scalia an opinion on Roe V. Wade?

With so much at stake, the Daily News gives Roberts a pass. Calls Feinstein an embarrassment.

It's really a sad case of a right-wing newspaper supporting Dear Leader at all costs, and compounding its arrogance by calling our Senator "an embarrassment" while Bush and Roberts mock the confirmation process and constitutional duty of the Senate.

That Bush nominated a conservative judge is what matters to the dim bulbs at the Daily News. Right wing politics matter to the Daily News.

At the Daily News, the Republican banner is the first flag run up the pole. The conservative rag flies over The Stars and Stripes at the Daily News.

Now, that's an embarrassment. And a disgrace.

--Drzal

Taxing Chico

2005-09-24T13:47:00.000-07:00

The left and the right wings of the Chico City Council recently divided sharply over whether to spend $25,000 to find out if the public is ready for tax increases for police, fire and roads.

The council’s swing vote, Maureen Kirk, swung over to the right and gave the conservatives the fourth vote needed to kill the survey.

Look for Kirk, who is running for county supervisor from Chico’s more conservative eastside, to cozy up with the right wingers on most close calls from here on out.

The Enterprise-Record reads the vote to mean the issue is dead, that the council won’t muster the will to put the tax increases on the ballot, and that Chicoans are safe from the taxman. With Kirk running for supervisor for another year, it’s hard to see where the fourth vote to move the issue along comes from.

Kirk was probably right to shoot down the deal. Let’s face it, council members know this town, and they know taxes are an uphill battle. You don’t need a survey to know that.

You might do a survey – and $25,000 isn’t that much – to find out how far behind you are, and then make a calculation as to whether a public education campaign might pull the issue over the top. The left-leaning council members said a survey would help educate the public about the need for additional public services.

A survey and, say, a ballot advisory measure would get people talking about the services they are getting, whether they’re happy with the cops spending their weekends watching college students, whether the fire trucks and paramedics are taking too long to get around town.

If you wanted to educate the community, you could talk about how good public services are the necessary bedrock of economic growth and rising property values. You might say additional taxes are an investment in the community that makes it possible for business to exist and prosper. Chicoans before us were willing to pay. So why not now?

That’s not the kind of debate the E-R and the conservatives have in mind.

Get the debate rolling, as polarizing as it would be, and let each side make their case.

I like the case the progressives on the council could make: You can trust us to determine adequate levels of public service that will assist the private sector in assuring an economically vibrant community. Your investment is returned many times over in increasing property values.

That’s not a bad counter to the knee-jerk, “no to taxes” crowd on the city council, in the Chamber of Commerce, and at the daily newspaper.

--Drzal

Opposing Roberts

2005-09-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

My letter to the Sacramento Bee opinion page.

Patrick Leahy, a key Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee, announced he will support Roberts, delivering a wallop across the knees with a baseball bat to the progressives in the party.

Harry Reid, the Dem leader in the Senate, will vote against Roberts, but that's looking more and more like a sop to the party activists, especially women(and men) worried about the future of their right to choose.

Washington, D.C. Democrats: Grow a backbone.

--Drzal

Ashcroft & Gifts from God in Yuba City

2005-09-21T09:04:00.000-07:00

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft preaching from the bully pulpit in Yuba City this week. From the Marysville Appeal-Democrat:

"(Ashcroft) told a capacity crowd at Calvary Temple that the freedom Americans enjoy is a gift from God that the country's founders recognized." - Marysville Appeal-Democrat

Freedom is a gift of God. Looks like the urge to mix politics and religion got the best of Ashcroft this week.

This is the freedom-lover that ushered in the Patriot Act during Bush's first term. The anti-terrorism law was, and continues today, to be the right wing's initial assault on this country's civil liberties. And Ashcroft was right there in the beginning.

Thinking of politics in a traditional sense, Ashcroft is old news. However, the neo-cons have been taking their message to the base regularly, and that includes the conservative church-goers of communities large and small across the country.

Some events, like Justice Sunday, starring Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, get a lot of play in the media. But just as many smaller events, like Ashcroft's speech in Yuba City, draw little attention. But they are just as important - maybe more important - to the right wing cause of convincing Americans to embrace politicians who embrace religious fundamentalism.

Ashcroft addressed the Calvary Temple congregation ostensibly at the behest of an old friend, the senior pastor of the church. That may be so.

But Ashcroft also came to the Northstate to mix religion and politics, and further the right-wing's goal of eroding the wall between church and state.

"Sometimes, people were upset with me as a public official," he said, and many thought that "because I was a Christian, I would impose my religion on others," he was quoted as saying.

But doing that, he said, is against his faith.

"The purpose of God is to allow people to make choices on their own," he(Ashcroft) said.

I guess he forgot to mention choices regarding reproductive rights, or his legal challenge while Attorney General of Oregon's "right to die" law which gives terminally ill patients the right to choose to end their lives.

Actually, he did fess up. It's right there in the quote above: "because I was a Christian, I would impose my religion on others." That's exactly how he conducted himself as Attorney General, and that is exactly what the conservative right wing, of which Ashcroft is a leading spokesman, would do should it succeed in dismantling the wall between church and state.

Here's the crux of thing: Ashcroft is far less interested in freedom than he is for promoting his religious beliefs and for gaining political power for the right wing fringe to which he belongs.

--Drzal

58 County Plan(Part 1) Update

2005-09-19T13:44:00.000-07:00

Update: 9/19/2005

Mary Longmore of Nevada County formed the Democratic Visibility Committee, which developed a 58 county strategy for the California Democratic Party. Via e-mail, Mary writes:

We are in the process of implementing it, all be it
rather slowly because of funding restrictions, across the state. The plan has been endorsed by several of the County Central Committees. The plan was looked on favorably by Art Torres(California Democratic Party Chairman) and he more or less endorsed it. He has appointed me as a co-chair on the Organizational and Development Committee of the State Party and asked that I bring the plan with me.

In the future, I'll pull out and discuss other sections of the plan that I think would be of special interest to rural Democrats. My orignal posting and a link to the 58 county plan is here. It is a must read for Democrats.

--Drzal

Blogger Influence

2005-09-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

Here's an excellent piece on how bloggers are altering the national political landscape. Daou, a former Kerry campaign official, has excellent insights into the differences between right-wing and left-wing blogs.

via Daily Kos and MyDD

--Drzal

Stop Arnold Campaign Kickoff

2005-09-16T23:36:00.000-07:00

Democratic Action Club of Chico Chair Randall Stone runs down the special election propositions here.

Tamara Yates takes the point for the Alliance for a Better California for Butte and Glenn Counties. Tamara tells us via e-mail that the campaign to defeat Propositions 74, 75 & 76 is underway, and that volunteers to walk precincts are needed right away.

We are walking precincts and calling voters to ask people to help us defeat propositions 74, 75 & 76, all detrimental to public employees. Teachers, Firefighters, Nurses, Police and other public workers need your help.

Now is the time to step up. We need you to volunteer this Saturday, September 17th (and every Saturday thereafter) for the continued precinct walking. We will be meeting at the CTA office in Chico: 1430 East Avenue at 8:30 AM. You will partner up with someone and be given a precinct, or partial precinct to walk and talk with targeted voters only. These targets are "friendlies" and our goal is just to get them to vote.

Ideally, we'd love for you to "adopt a precinct." You can adopt the one you live in! That way you can walk it whenever you have time! We cannot win this battle unless we increase voter turnout by 10%. Apathy is our enemy.

No one has time to do this. We need you to make the time anyway. Now is the time. Please call the CTA office to RSVP your confirmation: 345-9743 or just show up!

Thank you,

Tamara Yates

Support Educators, Firefighters, Police, Nurses and other public officials: Vote No in NOvember on Propositions 74, 75 & 76

These groups are also working now to stop the Governor's power grab:

Butte Central Labor Council
Mickey Harrington
(530) 873-3680
1009 Sycamore Street, Suite B Chico, CA 95928
Phone Banking 5-8 PM daily

Women's Health Specialists Eileen Schnitger
(916) 482-4856 x202
1469 Humboldt Road, Suite 200 (across from the Chico PD station) Chico, CA 95928

--Drzal

What does Herger say about this?

2005-09-16T23:03:00.000-07:00

Representative Susan Davis (D-53) of California has introduced legislation to reverse Bush's Gulf Coast Wage Cut. Read about it here.

Herger needs to tell the Northstate what he thinks about cutting the wages of people who have already suffered an unimaginable blow.

--Drzal