A Progressive Alamedan
Stark, Obama criticisms
Last week, the Alameda Democratic Club had a visit from our representative in Congress, Pete Stark.
Speaking at a Democratic Club, as opposed to a town hall, it was a friendly audience. Most of the questions were thought-provoking questions, and he had decent answers to most of them.
Unfortunately, it was crystal clear that Mr. Stark did not understand the issue of “Net Neutrality.” His answer was a rambling, incoherent non-response — the kind that make people hate politicians. I wish he had instead said something like “I’m really not familiar with that issue; let me get back to you on that.”
Or better yet, our representative in Congress really should be familiar with this issue. Perhaps he can look into the criticism that some of his fellow Democrats in Congress had on the recent Google/Verizon proposal.
On another note, I wanted to make sure that people read an open letter to President Obama (PDF Link) by the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, of which I have been a proud member since shortly after I started being a delegate to the state party. This letter really sums up the intense disappointment I have had with the Obama administration.
A small excerpt:
You promised to work for meaningful health care reform – we got a woeful compromise. You committed to seek to reign in an out-of-control financial sector – we got third best. You seemed to be in favor of winding down unnecessary and increasingly inept and unwinnable foreign adventures – we got an escalation of an untenable and unending war. You promised to close Guantanamo and end don’t ask, don’t tell – neither has seen much of your efforts. You campaigned against the Bush imperial presidency, and then you expanded it. We could go on.
Wow. Please take a moment to read the whole letter.
Two or Three City Council Openings
It appears that there are going to be a lot of candidates for City Council. It’s actually frustrating to me; there are more candidates I’d like to support than the two openings can handle!
However, it occurred to me that there is a chance that the next mayor we elect may leave a fresh opening on the council, depending on whether their term is still active or not.
I checked with the City Clerk, and she referred me to Section 2-7(A)) of the City Charter:
Vacancies caused by the election of a Councilmember to the office of Mayor shall be filled by the candidate not elected for a contested Council seat who received the highest number of votes, provided said candidate received votes from at least 10 percent (10%) of the total number of voters.
Very interesting. So this means that if the mayoral election leaves an opening, there could be three people joining the council (as new or returning members).
“My Word” in the Journal
I sent in a Letter to the Editor of the Alameda Journal, and it got published as a “My Word” editorial. You can read it at the “Inside Bay Area” page, or below.
I was disappointed to see no mention in last week’s Alameda Journal of the abominable restriction of First Amendment free speech rights at the Mayor’s Fourth of July Parade.
Yes, the as-yet-unsubstantiated attack by the acting city manager on Councilmember Lena Tam is certainly newsworthy, but in my opinion the “real” scandal going on is the abuse of power that somebody — we don’t know exactly who — is wielding in order to stifle political opposition in the upcoming mayoral and City Council race.
A memorandum written by Alameda City Attorney Teresa Highsmith effectively banned candidates Rob Bonta and Tony Daysog from announcing their candidacies for city offices in the parade. Other groups such as the Alameda Democratic Club were prevented from any advocacy for the upcoming November election. (Pretty ironic that these restrictions took place on the day in which we celebrate our American freedoms, isn’t it?)
Mayor Bev Johnson claimed in a television interview that the parade committee directed Highsmith to produce this letter. Does this mean that any 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization can now direct the city attorney to do its bidding? I called the City Attorney’s Office twice to get confirmation of Johnson’s statement, but my calls have been unreturned. Parade committee chair Barbara Price, in an e-mail to me, denied that the committee had the authority to make such a request and that somebody else directed the ruling.
Regardless of who instigated the ruling, it goes against Alameda’s city charter, which states that the city attorney “shall not commence any action without permission of the council or written instruction of the city manager.
I confirmed with the city clerk’s office that there was no written communication from the city manager or record in the City Council minutes of such a request being made.
This sounds to me, layman that I am, that the city attorney violated the city charter and acted at least unethically, if not illegally, in producing this letter.
And who is directing the city attorney to do their bidding? Could the acting city manager, or any member of the City Council, stand to gain anything by preventing nonincumbent candidates for council or mayor from declaring their candidacy in front of thousands of Alamedans?
I call upon the city attorney to tell us how she was directed to issue the memorandum, and I ask the Journal to do some digging as well. “Paradegate” is the real scandal happening in Alameda, and it reflects poorly on us a city until the responsible parties are exposed.
ParadeGate: Cui Bono?
I’m posting a follow-up on the whole parade issue for two main reasons. First, I’ve always wanted to give a scandal a name that ends in “gate.” Well, I’m calling this ParadeGate, and I hope that enough people raise a stink about what happened, and use this term to communicate the importance and local impact of the scandal and the long-term repercussions it brings.
Second, I want to make it clear, based on a misinterpretation of my previous post, that I was not accusing anybody in particular of being responsible for the City Attorney’s letter. I cast shame upon the Mayor only because, well, it’s the Mayor’s Fourth of July Parade, and, as the Mayor, the “buck” is supposed to stop with her. Whether it came from inside city staff, or council, or the parade committee, or the KGB, it doesn’t matter: She’s the Mayor, so the shame is, ultimately, on her.
As far as who is responsible, remember Innocent until proven guilty. This is turning out to be a quite a mystery that will need a bit of investigation. As with crimes and political intrigue, a way of come up with a list of “suspects” is to ask yourself: Cui Bono — who benefits? The comments on Lauren’s latest post about the issue are ripe with potential beneficiaries of this ruling.
Ultimately, I think that this dirty laundry will be one the line for us to examine within the next couple of weeks, as long as the issue doesn’t get ignored. (I was surprised that there was no mention of the issue in this last week’s Journal or Sun, but maybe they weren’t prepared to write up something on such short notice.)
By the way, I thought that the victims of the gag handled their predicament with honor and grace. Rob Bonta’s campaign was out in full force — family and friends wearing Bonta T-shirts, big Bonta signs on the convertible — but thanks to some last-minute self-censorship, the signs just said “for City.” I wonder if people were perplexed by the display, or if enough people knew that this was a censored campaign entry. Tony Daysog’s float looked a bit more self-serving, a rolling résumé of sorts, but people could probably figure out that he was running for something again even if they didn’t understand why his display didn’t say it. The third victim that I could find by perusing the program was likely to be Chris Pareja, an independent candidate running for Congress. I don’t know if he even made it to the parade or not; he may have been there but just lost among the People Who Weren’t In The Parade Last Year. I’m curious to find out if anybody else was told that their float couldn’t contain any advocacy.
Shame on the Mayor and the Fourth of July Parade Committee
The test of democracy is freedom of criticism.
David Ben-Gurion
The Fourth of July is the day we celebrate our nation’s independence, and, indirectly, our freedoms that were written in the form of constitutional amendments starting in 1791.
The very first of these amendments — I would say it’s the first because it’s the most important — guarantees freedom of speech.
And so on on the very day we celebrate our nation’s birthday, Alameda is cracking down on the first amendment.
Lauren Do broke the story earlier this week. Several candidates for office are not being allowed to express the fact that they are running for office!
All of the arguments that they make are ridiculous; I’ll let you catch more details on Lauren’s blog post.
Usually I am proud of Alameda, but this week I feel like Alameda is one of those back-water towns you hear about occasionally that get into a controversy (usually with the ACLU stepping in) when an unpopular group tries to express its views in a parade or other public display. And even though I would agree with the majority of the people that those people were scumbags, this is America, and it’s their right to express their unpopular opinions.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So this weekend, I say Shame on Mayor Beverly Johnson. And Shame on City Attorney Teresa L. Highsmith. And shame on the Mayor’s Fourth of July Parade Committee.
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky
Happy Birthday, America, and have a great Parade, Alameda. Just don’t be surprised if more groups are restricted next year. Unless we put a stop to this right now.
Get those ballots in!
The election is upon us! Actually two separate elections!
For the “regular” primary election, don’t forget the recommendations I made a few weeks ago. If you are in hurry, please at least vote YES on 13 and 15; NO on the other numbered propositions.
Election Day is this Tuesday, June 8. If you don’t have your ballot sent in by today, take it to any local polling place in town on Tuesday. Don’t miss out on making your voice heard!
I haven’t covered Measure E, the Alameda mail-in election, much here. (This election is mail-in only, with ballots for those due on June 22.) Measure E has been covered in the other blogs and the local newspapers’ letters too the editor. It seems that about 105% of Alamedans are in favor of it. Let’s just hope that translates to actual numbers when the votes are counted.
I was more than a little impressed with the commercial that Measure E supporters put together for viewing online and the local cable TV channels. Watch it even if you are already supporting Measure E. A lot of familiar faces there!
The whole video just exudes classy. It looks like it was shot on a really big budget, but it was apparently all-volunteer produced.
Pete Stark Opposes Wasteful Defense Spending, DADT
Our congressman, Pete Stark, is the bee’s knees. He voted against the wasteful defense spending bill. Of course, bills tend to package in a mixed bag of pieces, and he wanted to make sure that he was in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This is his statement, which I think is worth reading.
MR. STARK: Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose out of control war and defense spending. This bill (H.R. 5136) would authorize a record $726 billion for defense. Congress refuses to find money to maintain COBRA premium assistance for jobless workers, but somehow we can afford yet another increase to our already bloated defense budget.We should recognize that this legislation would fix a long-standing injustice by creating a path for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I was proud to vote for the Murphy Amendment and I look forward to the day when LGBT Americans enjoy equal rights in all facets of society, including marriage. Although I strongly support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I cannot vote for this legislation.The waste in this bill is shameful. It includes $361.6 million more than the Pentagon wants for a missile defense program that doesn’t work, and $485 million in funding for another engine for a fighter jet that already has a working engine. I offered an amendment that would have cut the extra funding for missile defense, but it was not allowed to come to the floor for a vote. An amendment to strike money for a duplicative engine that the Pentagon doesn’t want or need was also defeated.Congress needs to get our priorities in order. We should be working to create jobs and assisting those impacted by the recession, not continue runaway defense spending. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wasteful bill.
Beware the “Voter Information Guide” scam
Back in 2008, I pointed out a suspicious flyer that looked like it held the Democratic Party endorsements, but didn’t. Well, it’s back! Take your pick: Democrat or Independent, you probably got a flyer this week that looks like a very handy voter guide.
My Recommendations for the June 2010 Ballot (Alameda area + California)
Election Day for the June Primaries is a month away. As you know, I like to send out my suggestions for upcoming elections based on my experiences and research.
Since many of us vote by mail, I figured it would be a good idea to post my recommendations earlier rather than later. (Please save, bookmark, or print this page until you are ready to fill out your ballot.)
Feel free to excerpt this and forward this to other Californians who care! I’ve tried to segment out the local stuff so it’s easy to extract the state-wide stuff if needed.
THE PROPOSITIONS:
There are only 5 propositions on this ballot. I’m calling this the “Power Grab” election because several of these are about big corporate groups trying to grab power by spending a lot of money.
13: YES. This one’s a no-brainer and supported by both the Democratic and Republican Party of California. Allows people to do seismic retrofitting and not trigger a property value reassessment.
14: NO. Change the primary election process to be a so-called “open primary” with the top two overall vote getters duking it out in November. You could easily end up with the top two money-spenders as your two choices in November. Imagine if it came down to Meg Whitman vs. Steve Poizner … which millionaire would you choose? In local elections, the main problem is that in Red areas, it will generally pit R vs. R; in Blue areas, D vs. D. That doesn’t really allow for much diversity in choices, and would make it nearly impossible to “flip” a district. Obviously opposed by the Democrats, but I was surprised to see it’s opposed by the CA Republican party for pretty much the same reasons.
15: YES, YES, YES!!! This is a small step toward what we were trying to pass as Proposition 89 in 2006. A pilot program for the Secretary of State’s office, it is public financing for campaigns so that candidates with the best ideas and most support — not the most money — get to participate in politics. Imagine a world where politicians are free from the campaign contributions of special interests.
More info: http://www.yesfairelections.org/
16: NO!!! This is a big POWER GRAB by PG&E. You’ve probably gotten a lot of YES flyers – PG&E is putting a lot of money (I read $34.5 million) into this! Passing this would amend the state constitution on behalf of one company, making it extremely difficult for local governments to set up public power agencies – which would take business away from the power giant. As an Alamedan with a local power company, I have a lot of personal reasons to appreciate having our own power company, especially during the Enron days when Alamedans were paying the usual for electricity while the rest of California was being robbed blind. Do you know that nonprofit municipal utility customers pay an average of 20%–25% less for electricity than customers of for-profit electric utilities?
More info: http://www.noprop16.org/
17: NO! This is a power grab funded by one company: Mercury Insurance. It would roll back the insurance regulations that were passed as Proposition 103 many years ago. Their ads make it seem like a nice idea, but it’s really a way for this company to get a lot of extra money.
More info: http://www.stopprop17.org/ http://www.consumercal.org/article.php?id=1203
Props 16 and 17 are so disgusting. The initiative process was supposed to empower people, not corporations. Maybe 15 is a small step in the right direction….
Other local/non-partisan items on the ballot:
Alameda County — Superior Court Judge, Office #9: I’m supporting VICTORIA S. KOLAKOWSKI. I got to hear all three candidates at a panel last month, and she was the only one that impressed me. She’s picked up the support of a lot of fellow progressive Democrats as well.
California State Superintendent of Public Instruction: I don’t really have any strong feelings here. Tom Torlakson seemed to be the front-runner, at least from those on the Democrat side of the room.
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY:
If you are voting as a Democrat (either you are a registered Dem, or you are independent but have asked for the “Nonpartisan Democratic” ballot), you will have an opportunity to vote for who will represent the Democrats in the November election.
For Governor, the obvious front-runner is come-back kid Edmund G. “Jerry” BROWN. Viewed as too liberal by the conservatives, and not liberal enough by the progressives like me, he will probably do a decent job. I don’t think anybody else is as qualified! The only other candidate I’ve heard of it Peter Shurman, who had a minor presence at the Democratic Convention and is running as a progressive. You could toss your vote to him as a protest vote, I suppose, though I wasn’t that impressed by him.
Lieutenant Governor: This is a tough one. The two front-runners are Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn. I’m somewhat ambivalent, but I am supporting JANICE HAHN only because I think that the ticket needs balancing; I think that Brown/Newsom would have a tough time competing against the Republicans in November; but pairing Brown with a woman, from Southern California, without a lot of the baggage that Newsom has, might be a winning combination.
Incumbents Debra Bowen (Yeayyy!), John Chiang, and Bill Lockyer are running unopposed on the Democratic ticket. I can’t think of any reason not to vote for them.
Attorney General is the only state race that is truly an open field. I got to hear many of the candidates, and though I thought the “vote for pedro” T-shirts were cute, I am supporting KAMALA D. HARRIS, a D.A. from San Francisco. She comes across as one of the brightest people I’ve seen. I really like her “smart” (as opposed to “tough”) on crime approach.
Insurance Commissioner: I’m supporting DAVE JONES; I’ve actually met him a few times here and there and I like his politics. Jones was supported by a supermajority of delegates at the convention, so he got the official Democratic Party endorsement.
State Board of Equalization, District 1 (Coastal California) I’m supporting the incumbent, BETTY T. YEE. I met her a couple of years ago and I’ve always been impressed by her political passion. (For people in District 2, covering most of inland California and into Santa Barbara, I recommend CHRIS PARKER.)
State Senator: BOXER. A true hero. ‘Nuff said.
Ronald Reagan Day? Ewwww….
Apparently our lawmakers in Sacramento are on their way to proclaiming February 6th of every year as Ronald Reagan Day, in celebration of all of the wonderful things he did for California.
This “law” has already been passed by the State Senate and is now up for a vote in the Assembly as AB2412.
Reagan would be the third person to get a special day of recognition; his predecessors are Harvey Milk and John Muir.
Ewwww.
I would rather have February 6th, Reagan’s birthday, instead celebrate some other notables, perhaps Babe Ruth or Bob Marley, who also were born on that day. Or maybe in celebration of Rick Astley’s birthday, February 6th could be “RickRoll Day.”
Anything but Ronald Reagan. Remember, this is the president who brought you the Iran-Contra affair, aid to right-wing movements in Central America, union busting, ignoring of AIDS, unprecedented nuclear buildup, and so much more. And let’s not forget his California legacy, like sending in the National Guard to Berkeley!
So call up Sandré Swanson’s office at (510) 286-1670 or (916) 319-2016 and tell them that Ronald Reagan is not somebody we should be celebrating every year. I just did, myself!
