JustWalt's Mental Meanderings: government

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Monday, January 9, 2012

How Many Public Works Guys Does It Take to Change a Light?

About a month ago I did a post on my recent experience serving—albeit briefly—on a redevelopment committee for the City of Vista, CA where I live. It was, to say the least, an interesting, although brief, experience. If you recall, a month after I was appointed, the City disbanded the Committee.

Well, since then I have had a wonderful opportunity to get “re-acquainted” with the machinations of the City of Vista. Here’s my sordid, but true tale. It all started on October 25, 2011.

You see folks, there’s a street light just in front of my apartment building. I mean if the wind is right I can spit on it—that’s how close it is. In mid-0ctober I noticed that it was dark along our street—really dark. Now, the City had been threatening/promising or whatever for months that it would have to turn off most of the residential streetlights as a budget saving measure. But, the light would come on. Then in about 5 minutes it would fizzle out. A few minutes later it would sputter and come back on. It did this all night long—well at least as late as I’ve ever chosen to stay up.

I put up with it for a few nights. When it’s out, it’s dark along our street. Really dark. Dangerous dark—there are always pedestrians going up and down the sidewalks. So I decided to do something about it.

But what to do? I went into the City’s website which is decidedly not “user-friendly”, almost as if the City acknowledges that it has to have a public website but that it would really prefer if no citizen actually used it to get information or contact their local government. I was looking for the Department of Public Works or some other way to contact someone who could do something about my streetlight. Finally, I stumbled on a “feedback” link which let’s someone send a generic message to the “city”.

I sent about a 2 sentence message (I was limited to about 300 characters, which for me is not much) and much to my surprise within an hour I had a response. Not just one response but 2! The second one was from a project assistant in public works who actually read what I had sent and who said she would check it out.

A little while later I got a second e-mail from her telling me that there wasn’t a streetlight out in front of my building but that there was one on the other side of the street about 100 yards away. Hmmmm, no, there’s one in front of the building all right. What to do? I was encountering bureaucracy.

So I took out my camera and took a few pictures showing the light from my balcony and then went across the street to photograph the light with my building and its address in the background. These I attached to a new e-mail. Oops! The city official sent me back a response saying that she would update the city’s map and put in a “work order” which should be taken care of in 6-7 “business days”. OK, 2 weeks.

Two weeks go by. Nothing happens. In fact, on October 30 (the day before Halloween and trick or treating) I sent another e-mail to the person suggesting that it would be nice if the light could be fixed before Halloween and all the extra kids and families who would be walking up and down the street the next night. No response—even though I played the “public safety trump card”.

So I waited some more. Now don’t get me wrong. I didn’t sit out on my balcony all day, every day waiting for a city crew to come by. I kept on with my life but each night, I would grumble and complain while watching the light “bzzzzzt” off and on, off and on all night long.

The positive side of it was that at night when the light was on we could get a much better view of the stars in the dark sky. It was in its own way pleasant—but not really safe.

About the 5th or so of November, I called the Department of Public works and talked to a nice guy who also told me that there was no light in front of my apartment. And then, just as quickly told me that there was (he had just pulled up my original e-mail proving it’s existence). He also pledged that he was updating the map and would schedule the work—apparently it hadn’t happened the first time. And so I waited. And waited. Still nothing.

So, along about mid-November I dug out the big guns. I prepared another e-mail. This one (after doing some more online research) was addressed to the Mayor, City Manager and Director of Public Works. Wow! Even though City Hall is a whopping 3 blocks away, one could almost hear the gears of the system screech and grind as these officials seemed to drop what they were doing and take action.

In less than an hour I had an e-mail from the City Manager AND the Public Works director pledging action the following day. I don’t think I was very snotty to them in my e-mail—OK maybe a bit sarcastic. And maybe it helped that I sent the pictures of the light, along with a new photo of the light at night, burned out.

Anyway, there were e-mails and promises. “Yeah, yeah,” I thought.

Let’s fast forward to the very next morning. It’s 8:10 a.m. I don’t work until 2 p.m. So I’m checking out e-mail and the blogs and the news and drinking coffee—still in my pajamas.

My phone rings. “Walter, this is Jim Howell, the Director of Public Works here in Vista,” a voice tells me.

Now, my first thought is that it’s pretty early for a city employee to be on the phone. The guy’s voice is a bit hard to hear because there’s a diesel truck out in front of the building idling.

“I’m standing out in front of your building and we’re fixing your light now,” he proceeded to tell me. “Do you have a minute so I can explain the situation to you.”

“Hold on just a minute, Jim,” I replied. “Yep, I see you. Tell you what, I’ll come down and we can talk rather than on the phone.”

There’s this tall, professional guy in a shirt and tie and leather jacket standing across the street talking into a cell phone. I went out the door and down the stairs—still in my pajamas.

There’s a boom-truck with several guys right by the streetlight and they’re actually working. OK, so how many city workers does it take to change a light bulb? A total this day of 5—one in the bucket, one to run the controls on the truck, 2 to keep an eye on traffic and the Director of Public Works. Damn! This has got to be a fairly pricey light bulb change!

So I went down and talked to the guy while my wife took my picture in my jammies. He explained to me that they had actually done some work on the light (and showed me a work order) on October 10 but apparently didn’t realize that the ballast was bad.

OK, that’s fine with me. I’m just glad that they’re getting to it. Now, I know that Vista, California is a bigger city than I’ve lived in most of my life and that by California standards at 100,000 it’s not that big but…

Yeah, “but”…I still didn’t think that it should take the better part of a month to fix this and to have to convince people that there is, indeed, a streetlight in front of my address. I can’t help but wonder whether it would have been accomplished any quicker if I lived in a more “upscale” neighborhood—but that’s not fair to the folks at City Hall.

But these guys showed up and didn’t laugh at me out talking to the Director of Public Works in my pajamas. And, start to finish, it only took a month.

I guess I’m just getting too old and grumpy but it was kind of cool seeing that big old truck hoist a guy up in the air to change a light bulb and then hang around watching it for a half hour to make sure that it worked.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Streetlights, Nightlights and a Congressman

Part 1: Quiet Night, Nightlight
For some reason I woke up at about 2 a.m. this morning after having dozed off again on the couch. The quietness got my attention. By quiet I mean that there was no traffic noise, no kid noise, just some night birds out on their rounds. So I went out on the balcony to absorb it. I loved the peacefulness of that quiet.

Looking around while breathing in the fresh nighttime air, I noticed something that I first spotted about a month ago. The City of Vista, California where I live is building a new $55 million City Hall (in California they’re called “Civic Centers”). OK, nothing wrong with that because the City has been using an old decrepit elementary school for a City Hall for about 25-30 years.

3:00 a.m. The lights are on at City Hall construction site--nobody's home

So what’s bugging me? Well, the new City Hall is about 300 yards in a straight line from my balcony. It’s 3 stories high so I can see it from where I live. Why do the construction people have to leave the lights on in the entire structure 24/7? Can’t someone turn the lights off at night except for necessary security lights? How much is that costing the taxpayers?

Part 2: Dark Tunnel, No Light
One stinking, lousy streetlight. That’s all I wanted and all I asked for. What I got was a painted line. A painted line is better than nothing. But it doesn’t diminish the darkness.

What the hell am I talking about? Just a little difference of opinion I had with the City of Vista, California where I live. You see there’s this intersection a couple of blocks from where I live. The intersection of South Citrus Ave. and Eucalyptus. It’s 2 blocks from the downtown. There are no streetlights. And at night it’s dark. Real dark. Spooky dark.

I’m consider myself to be a really good driver and this intersection (especially turning right from Eucalyptus to Citrus) is scary. As soon as you start to turn right, the street starts to descend to where you can’t see the right shoulder. You have to know it’s there and how far you can or can’t get over.

Just 1 stinking, lousy streetlight--Please!

So, I sent an e-mail to the City Street department which got bucked over to the Engineering Department which contacted me to tell me that there wasn’t any money in the budget for a streetlight there but that I was welcome to contact the power company and pay for it myself. Say what? My response that I was referring to public property was met by an offer to paint a white line along the shoulder at the turn to mark it better. OK, better than nothing.

Well, I hadn’t driven through there in a good 6 months until recently. And I had forgotten just how dark it is. It’s dangerous dark to the point where I’m uncomfortable driving it. It’s also dangerous for any pedestrians who might be out at night. And, there’s been at least one mugging there too.

Is it too much to ask for one stinking, lousy street light at this intersection and for the damn city to turn off the lights at the City Hall construction site at night?

Part 3: To My Congressman
Darrell Issa is the Congressman for my district. He lists his address as the city where I live, Vista, California. Rep. Issa was vehemently opposed to the new HealthCare legislation recently passed by Congress.

Now, if and when Rep. Issa is “home” in Vista, I’m sure that he lives in a pretty good neighborhood. (Let’s put it this way, if you’ve ever bought a security alarm for a car, there’s pretty good odds that it’s a “Viper” made by Issa’s company). This guy is, according to Wikipedia, the wealthiest Congressman.

So, I’m guessing that Rep. Issa has rarely, if ever, been into my neighborhood of Vista (it’s an area that my wife described as “semi-barrio” when we first started dating). He’s got his. And his constituents tend to be the affluent Republicans who tend to flock together in this area.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of them and all he has to do is keep them happy. The type of people who live in my neighborhood tend to be less likely to vote and less likely to complain. They’re too busy trying to make ends meet.

But, I’ve always had this thought that a Congressman or Legislator or City Council member needs to represent all of his or her constituents (pretty damn naïve for someone with a Master’s degree in Political Science, isn’t it).

So here’s my point—it’s an invitation. Congressman, come on over to my apartment. It’s just a half-block off Vista Way and you won’t have to go too far into the Hispanic Townsite neighborhood that the paper invariably refers to as “hardscrabble”.

Let’s hang out on the balcony for about an hour and just observe. I’ll even throw some burgers or sausage on the grill. But, let’s observe the people of this neighborhood. They’re your constituents too. Who are they? What are they?

They’re overwhelmingly brown. They’ve got families. They walk more places than you do because they don’t have much money. Many don’t have cars. The hold their children’s hands as they walk. The little girls look like gorgeous dolls and the boys like mischievous rascals. You can sense and feel the love they’re given. Love has nothing to do with economics. Except that if you don’t have much to give, you can still give love—it’s inexhaustible.

The teens are typical and normal. Even though they might not have much, they’ve got i-Pods and cell phones. Someone sacrificed to get them too. It’s not like a lot of other neighborhoods were there is no economic sacrifice and people have plenty.

So this is our neighborhood. Notice the young Moms with toddlers who are pregnant again. I wonder what kind of health insurance they’ve got? I wonder what kind of pre-natal care they’re getting.

Come on over, Rep. Issa. We won’t make a big press deal out of it or anything—that’s not the point. Just observe (no entourage or security). And maybe you can wander out and talk to a few. Find out what’s on their minds. Don’t worry, most speak English. It’s cool to listen to the kids going to school or coming home seamlessly switching back and forth from English to Spanish all the while sounding like what they are—kids.

And after you hang out for a bit, head on back to Shadowridge Country Club. Maybe some of the guys there who are trimming the bushes live in my neighborhood. And maybe, you’ll be able to understand just a little bit better.

Come on over, Rep. Issa. Just for an hour.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Obama's Health Report--Let the Man Smoke!

Yesterday some of the results of President Obama’s physical exam came to light. His “bad” cholesterol is up and there was veiled reference to his continuing efforts to stop smoking.

There was also mention of how his smoking and apparent eating of “bad foods” are a bad example to the nation, in particular to Michelle Obama’s new crusade on childhood obesity and the health risks of smoking. Oh, and he likes his cocktails too.

Oh for crying out, damn loud!

Let the guy eat whatever he wants and smoke like a chimney if he wants. This guy’s got a tough job made much tougher by all the a-holes he has to contend with each day who try to stymie and stifle his efforts every step of the way. He’s scrawny. He works out.

Does he go outside to smoke? Is that why he’s always walking Beau? I could care less if he lit one up during a photo opportunity with the poster wheezer for the Emphysema Society. If he wants to chainsmoke or puff a hookah during a Cabinet meeting or a meeting with the military Chiefs of Staff, let him. They’re big boys. They work for him. Tough toenails.

Might his smoking harm some of the antiques that are undoubtedly in his office? Who cares. It’s old crap anyway which I’m sure has been exposed to its share of smoke over the centuries. Besides, there’s a minor army of people on the government payroll whose job it is to restore that stuff.

Get together with anyone you want Obama and go out and “burn one”. Sit in the Oval Office, chug a brewski and smoke a Camel straight. One rule. Use an ashtray. Michelle would be P.O.’d if you burned or spilled on that carpet with the seal in it (that’ll be going to a museum someday).

You’ve got a mess with health care legislation. You’ve got 2 wars still going on. You’ve got jerks criticizing every damn thing you do. And, you’ve been kind of vacillating because you hate to tick anyone off.

OK, so here’s what you do: Sit back and start telling yourself, “I’m the President. I’ve got a lot of crap to get done. I’ve got 59 votes in the Senate. So work with me Republicans or you can all go and screw yourselves. The buck stops here. FDR and Truman were smoking fiends.”

Light up a butt. Blow smoke rings. Smoke as much as you want. Just get something done. Drink a Bud and eat some chips (chip crumbs are OK on the carpet in the Oval Office because they’ll vacuum right up).

And besides, if you start using nicotine lozenges or gum, you’re going to stink up the Oval Office and Cabinet rooms even worse with the nasty gas it’ll give you. And there’s way too much nasty gas in Washington, D.C. already.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

And the Beat Goes On--California's Smoke & Mirror Budget

(Note: You might like scrolling to the bottom and clicking on the YouTube video then reading this post while you listen)

Remember “Cheers”? I’ve always been more Cliff Claven than anyone else, but I’m thinking about Woody. There were times when stuff would happen to Woody, either with a girlfriend or some other personal disaster.

Sam or Diane or Norm would ask him something like, “Aren’t you really mad about that?”

To which Woody would respond, in that flat, monotone, Midwestern way, “I’m a little ticked.”

Well, I’m more than a little ticked and it’s been bugging me all morning. You see, I have the misfortune to live in California. The State of California just announced yesterday that the Legislature and Governor’s office have agreed to a balanced budget for the fiscal year that started 3 weeks ago. And we’re all supposed to rejoice.

Except that it’s a crock. It’s a sham. It’s a subterfuge. It’s fraud.

Our grand-glorious Governor and Legislature have put together a budget which does not contain tax increases and yet manages to close a $26 billion deficit. Sure, and I’m going to wake up tomorrow with a full head of hair.

Granted, as AP reported, “the plan cuts $15 billion from government programs by slashing spending on schools, universities, health care, welfare and in-home support for the disabled and frail.

They just don’t get it. The time for “smoke and mirrors” and sleight of hand are over. But that’s exactly the kind of budget that has been created. The most egregious example of that is a proposal to “save”$1.2 billion by paying state employees on July 1, 2010 rather than on June 30, 2010 (in other words pushing their paycheck one day into the following fiscal year).

The state is also going to take $4 billion worth of payments to local governments and use it to balance the budget—repaying it with interest over 3 years.

But the good news is that legislative Republicans prevailed. There are no new taxes or tax increases. No, that will be left to the municipalities who will have to increase fees and taxes in order to balance their own precarious budgets.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are thinking like so many failed businesses who focus on cost cutting rather than on revenue increase. You’ve got to think on both sides of the ledgerbook in order to make a budget work. That’s basic and fundamental.

And without belaboring it there are ways to increase revenues. California is a major oil producing state yet has no severance tax. Put an increased tax on alcoholic beverage purchases (I smoke but don’t drink so I prefer a booze tax!).

No, what the state wants to do is accelerate the collection of 2010 personal income and corporate taxes to bring in revenue earlier. This would give the state an “interest free loan” until taxpayers claim the money on tax returns. More hocus-pocus.

Public employee unions have far too much influence in California. They forget that their jobs exist to serve the public. It’s that basic. And yet their complaints about schools and prisons are thinly veiled blackmail attempts primarily motivated by a desire to keep their jobs.

This kind of legerdemain will prevail until California fundamentally addresses its system of governance. And this state cannot wait much longer. Proposition 13 and 98 must be revisited. The State’s basic “operating structure” must be scrutinized, streamlined and made to work better. And the State must take a fundamental look at how it ought to be serving its citizens and reflect that in its organizational and fiscal structure. Until that happens, this state and especially its citizens are screwed. And maybe that’s why all morning I have had a song from the late Congressman Sonny Bono going through my head: “The Beat Goes On”. And it does. But it doesn’t get us anywhere.

This rant won’t make any kind of difference but at least I “officially” got it off my chest. I’m still more than a little ticked.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Airplanes & Politics: The V-22 Osprey is Scary!

The San Diego Union Tribune and the North County Times in northern San Diego County ran news articles on June 24 about the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey—the aircraft which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane.

V-22 Osprey in flight

This aircraft first flew in 1989 and, to date, has cost $28.8 billion. And it just went into active service late last year. The Osprey has been “tested” in Iraq although did not fly on any combat missions. So far it has not been deployed to Afghanistan.

Conversations have come up recently about the F-22 Raptor and its future with the Air Force, especially since it is primarily an air superiority aircraft in an age when that has not been an issue. This incredibly expensive piece of hardware is the beneficiary of an attempt by some members of congress to buy additional units. Pres. Obama has threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill if it includes funding for additional F22s which the military has not requested.

But the Osprey is more problematic. It is supposed to replace 2 highly reliable but aging helicopters, the twin rotor CH-46 Sea Knight and the CH-53 Sea Stallion currently used by the Marines and Navy. These helicopters have been around since Viet Nam. The most important thing about them though is that they work!

CH-53 Sea Stallion

From a military point of view, the United States is far more likely to be in a conflict requiring “boots on the ground” than air superiority. We are far more likely to have to land Marines by air assault and to then support those troops than to engage in aerial “dog fights”. Those Marines and soldiers deserve the best support that is possible to provide. Support that works and facilitates their mission.

CH-46 Sea Knight

Here are some scary things about the Osprey (according to the Union Tribune and North County Times articles):

The Osprey was originally specified to carry 24 troops, however heavier troop equipment has reduced that to 20 and the planned installation of a gun in the Osprey’s belly to improve its defense would reduce that to 18.

The Osprey has an operating ceiling of 10,000 feet (apparently because of problems with the aircraft’s de-icing system). In Afghanistan, many peaks are over 12,000 feet in height.

The cost of operating the Osprey has more than doubled from original estimates and is now $11,000 per hour, twice what it cost for the CH-46. And the cost per aircraft has increased more than 148 percent from $37.7 million when first launched in 1985 to $93.4 million today. And remember, when close to the ground in landing or take-off mode, the aircraft is highly vulnerable to some dude with a rocket propelled grenade being able to shoot it down for about $100!

“It can’t land without power—a vital maneuver called autorotation that saved thousands of lives in Vietnam—without the danger of flipping into its own downwash. It isn’t capable of maneuvering in combat conditions.” (Union Tribune)

V-22 Osprey in Iraq

Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-NY was quoted in the Union Tribune article as saying: “It can’t be used in hot weather. It can’t be used in cold weather. It can’t be used in sand. The list of what the Osprey can’t do is longer than what it can do.” Towns chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform which is investigating the cost overruns and mechanical problems of the Osprey.

The Government Accountability Office has “recommended a new analysis of the military’s needs” in terms of the Osprey program projected to cost $75 billion over the 30-year program cost. Of course, part of the question is when did the program start? 1985? In that case it only has 6 years to go and so far no widespread deployment of the aircraft.

It is scheduled to be deployed to Miramar Marine Airbase and Camp Pendleton. Miramar in San Diego and Pendleton 40 miles north of San Diego.

The F-22 Raptor can fulfill its mission. The debate is about the relevance and cost of the mission. Few doubt the relevance of the V-22 Osprey’s mission. The Osprey is a cool-looking aircraft. But cool-looking doesn’t get the mission of the Marine Corps accomplished.

(Note: All photos from Google Images)

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Senate to let FDA Regulate Tobacco:"Thank you Capt. Obvious"

Dee dee dit dee dee dit dee dee dee...Breaking news today from the Associated Press:

"Washington--The Senate votes Thursday on legislation that for the first time would give the government control over the production and marketing of tobacco products, a long-sought goal that supporters say could save lives and millions in health care dollars."

"According to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, "We're going to be able to protect millions of children and Americans from deadly tobacco-related disease.' The bill would allow the FDA to require changes to nicotine yields and other chemicals in cigarettes and other tobacco products, although it could not ban nicotine. It would require tobacco companies to provide detailed lists of ingredients and any changes in those ingredients."

I read that and started coughing so hard I had to put out my cigarette.

This is just a bunch of hooey. Remember when Dr. David Kessler was the Commissioner of the FDA during the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations? Naw, you probably don't. He got in trouble for suggesting that cigarettes be designated a "drug delivery device" and as such be regulated by the FDA. Big Trouble! But he was absolutely, dead solid right. So now we get this watered down stuff that says the FDA can regulate some of the content of cigarettes.

Geesh, when is the government going to realize (in spite of the tobacco industry's posturing, lobbying and spending) that these things are killers? The only thing they are made for is to get people addicted to nicotine. Nicotine, in and of itself, is relatively harmless but it's the way the nicotine gets into the system that is the killer.

Anyone who knows me knows that I smoke like a chimney on a cold night. Yeah, I'm addicted and I've yet to permanently quit. It would be nice for the government to do the right thing once in a while. Kessler was right. But so was George Carlin who also said, "Cigarette companies market heavily to young people. They need young customers because their product kills the older ones. It is the only product that, if used as intended, kills the customer."

Isn't it nice to know that the Congress and FDA are looking out for our best interests!

To quote George Carlin again, "Thank you Captain Obvious."

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Excerpts from Cali Prop 8 Court Ruling (Strauss v Horton)

It’s interesting that there is so much flying around the media, online and in blogs about the just issued ruling on California Proposition 8 Case. The decision in Strauss v. Horton (the Prop 8 Case) was 136 pages long with 40 pages of concurring opinions and 1 dissenting opinion.

So what exactly did California’s Supreme Court say? As is so often the case, the actual opinion isn’t as horrific as those on either side of the issue might suspect. The Court was pretty narrow in its opinion.

According to the Court:
“the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.”

The argument which was presented to the California Supreme Court was whether the issue in Proposition 8 (that a marriage as defined in California is between a man and a woman) was an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of the Constitution.

It was a narrow case as such cases by their nature tend to be. It was the best chance that the appellants believed they had to challenge the restrictions of the successful Prop. 8 election.

According to the Court’s decision:
“At the same time, as numerous decisions of this court have explained, although the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt amendments to the California Constitution, under its governing provisions that process may not be used to revise the state Constitution”

“Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.”

“…in resolving the amendment/revision question, a court carefully must assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”

“Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage”

“Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”

Ultimately the Court has concluded the following:
“… we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 — which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution — does not constitute a revision. As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners’ claim in this regard…”
“We agree with petitioners that the state constitutional right to equal protection of the laws unquestionably represents a long-standing and fundamental constitutional principle (a constitutional principle that, as we already have explained, has not generally been repealed or eliminated by Proposition 8)”.

OK, so now we have the benefit of the Court’s rationale on this issue. By ruling that Prop 8 was an amendment rather than a revision, there is almost no way the Court could have agreed with the appellant because that was the crux of the argument made against Prop 8 in the Court filing.

However, the rationale that the strictures of Prop 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process strikes me as a stretch and potentially grounds for future appeal. In my limited knowledge, this strikes me as somewhat akin to “separate but equal” which Brown v Board of Education long ago found to be anything but equal.

For now, I would think that, based upon the wording of this ruling, advocates for benefits for same-sex couples can and should use it to make sure that all of the rights held by “married” couples are assured and guaranteed to same-sex couples. That seems to me to be a clearly worded element of this decision.

I haven't spent much time actually analyzing this ruling or doing a cross reference back to what the Court called the "Marriage Cases". It's also too bad that the media hasn't yet gone through the decision and reported on what indeed the Court said rather than just to say that Prop 8 was upheld. Maybe the media actually wanted all hell to break loose because it makes for better cable news and front page fodder than does a careful reporting of the actual decision.

Hopefully, we can use these actual words of California’s Supreme Court for more informed discussion and debate upon this important ruling and issue.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Obama vs Cheney--Back to Basics

Bear with me just a bit while I mentally journey all the way back to the mid-70s. Forget the wide bell-bottom jeans and fitted polyester double-knit shirts and harness boots.

I’m trying to recall lessons learned from lectures and readings—as well as all the introspection over the intervening years. But it starts here with Dr. Poochigian’s classes on political thought. With his emphasis on “linguistic analysis”. Yep, my Master’s degree is in Political Science emphasizing political philosophy and constitutional law. And, as I’ve maintained ever since, my MA in political philosophy and $2.50 will buy me a cup of coffee at any Denny’s. I used to be able to do that for half a buck but that’s the wages of inflation for you.

So, if you’re still reading, what I’m trying to do is to make some sense of the Cheney/Obama “debate” that is see-sawing back and forth in the media concerning Guantanamo Bay and “detainees”. The way I have typically done this in my life is to try to break things down to the most basic concept that I can.

Cheney has always bothered me and scared me. Because of that I have tried not to think too much about him. However, he seems to want to be the face and voice of conservatism within the Republican party during the Obama administration when Republicans are regathering themselves. Unfortunately, back in my own Republican days there seemed to be a strong “moderate branch” with which I identified which all but disappeared starting with the Gingrich years in the 90’s—which is when I abandoned the Republicans for good.

Cheney takes the classic approach that the ultimate aim of government is order—that everything flows from there. No rights can be assured; no benefits can accrue to the public until and unless order is assured. Rights are articulated and then whittled away all in the quest for maintaining order. This is the more cynical view of people as purely self-interested and ready and willing to resort to anarchy at any time.

Obama on the other hand believes in the aim of government as one which assumes the basic goodness and worthiness of people. This is the more optimistic view which passionately protects and expands upon the rights of individuals and works to assure the common good. More importantly, government protects the weakest of its citizens in order to assure protection for all of its citizens.

The Cheney view is one which could come up with a hollow rationale which claimed that because detainees were in Guantanamo Bay that they were outside the U.S. and consequently not subject to the protections of the Constitution. This was one of the flimsiest fabrications I’ve ever encountered. Everyone else at that installation is subject to the Constitution. The Cheney view justified torture of “detainees” because they weren’t really POWs, merely “enemy combatants”.

The Obama view is that the “Gitmo” environment, torture, etc. are just not right. If someone is in our custody, that person is the beneficiary of at least minimum assurances to treatment and due process. Now this sounds simplistic and it is. It’s either fundamentally right or it’s fundamentally wrong. Make that determination and go from there.

This is all such a hydra-headed monster that efforts to reduce it to what in elementary school arithmetic is known as the “least common denominator” is an essential exercise. It is this exercise that allows for issues to be exposed on a bare-bones level. It seeks the foundation of who we are and what we are.

Quite frankly the Cheney view is little different from a fascist view. It is a view that has justified totalitarianism in its various forms over the centuries. Obama’s view can be seen in a more egalitarian fashion—perhaps somewhat naïve. But give me naiveté anytime over the cynicism which led us through the debacle of the first 8 years of the 21st century and which Mr. Cheney would like to perpetuate.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama Court Pick: "You Gotta Have Heart"

I must be dating myself badly because I have this image of the characters from the movie “Damn Yankees” going through my head—the locker room scene where the players are singing “You Gotta Have Heart” with that incredible high descant harmony.

The reason is that yesterday, an AP article stated that President Obama wants the successor to Supreme Court Justice Souter to be someone “who is not only schooled in the law, but passionate about how it affects people’s lives, a scholar willing to decide a case from the heart when the constitutional answer is elusive.”

Unfortunately there wasn’t a whole lot of depth to the article. (I wonder whether my paper did some pretty heavy editing). The only person quoted in the article was White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs. “You have a president who understands and has studied many of these issues—even taught them,” said Gibbs.

Now I don’t have much of a problem with these criteria. But I think that has a lot to do with how I perceive President Obama and his philosophical and constitutional orientation. If Obama’s predecessor had said the same thing in the context of his choice for a Supreme Court justice it would have scared the hell out of me.

So, unfortunately what it seems to come down to is our basic sense of agreement with the person who will be doing the nominating. A good justice is in the eye of the beholder. It just depends on which side of the teeter-totter you’re sitting.

Yeah, I think that Souter’s successor will likely be pretty liberal in his or her view of the U.S. Constitution. I also think that the successor will have some pretty well established credentials as a Constitutional scholar (especially knowing that Obama has those same credentials). As for someone who is passionate about how the law affects people’s lives—to me that’s a pre-requisite. The law and the constitution do affect people’s lives. Every day. In numerous ways.

And I guess I think that a liberal successor to David Souter (who was more “liberal” than Pres. Bush would have ever supposed) is just fine. There will be those who will revile that more liberal orientation. There will be those who are scathing over ever opinion. Personally I think they’re wrong.

Maybe it’s like my Dad always used to say (especially when I was just about to lose a teen-ager’s argument with him) “Opinions are like asses. Everybody has one.”

Supreme Court justices are kind of like the father of a teenager—when push comes to shove their opinion is going to be the one which counts. Hopefully when whoever is ultimately confirmed as the next justice decides from the heart it will be reasoned, tempered by knowledge and passion for the constitution and empathy for the people who will be affected. And, “You Gotta Have Heart” is a good way of putting it.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Is California "Too Big to Fail"?

I think I’ve got it figured out finally. I’ve been worrying on the California special election like a hungry dog on a steak bone, just gnawing away looking for a solution.

You see, I just don’t like the 6 questions which are being put before the voters. It seems to me that the so-called “solution” is a cop-out by the Governor and Legislators who have now tossed it to the voters to validate. Unfortunately, if the voters validate the smoke and mirrors put forth by the 6 measures then the voters will take ownership of a pitiful excuse for solutions which will allow elected officials to wash their hands in the best Pontius Pilate fashion.

Of course, it’s California’s government by referred measure which has had more than a little to do with the budgetary debacle that the state is experiencing.

So, what to do about it? Well, the first thing is to do what I’ve been thinking about for several months. Defeat measures 1A through 1F. Just vote No! Turn down every one of them. Then, as the budget gets worse, as the economy of California tanks further, have Governor Schwarzenegger make a call to President Obama.

The Governor can tell the President that the world’s 5th largest economy is tanking. The state with almost 1/8th of the nation’s population is broke. He can then tell the President that, like AIG, California is “too big to fail”.

AIG got something like $85 billion and that’s a lot of money. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget, California only needs a little less than half that--$41 billion—a bargain. And for a whole state. If the Federal Government would just write California a check, from TARP funds or wherever, the state’s books would be balanced and we could maybe, just maybe, manage to make ends meet until we have to engage in a budget debacle again for next year when we might, or might not, be able to generate enough money. Oh, and by the way, no executives in California will be paid 7 or 8 figure bonuses. There are already enough 6 figure State employees and retirees as it is.

Let’s see, last week Pres. Obama suggested that we cut $17 billion from the Federal budget. He was criticized because that’s only about ½ of 1%. So $41 billion would be what—about 1 ¼%? That ain’t bad for the world’s 5th largest economy with 1/8th of the nation’s population. Of course, we won’t tell Pres. Obama that California’s budget is 37% in the red; that might tend to tick him off just a bit.

And who knows, maybe the President will put some things in motion to bail us out just like AIG or GM. Although he may say that, like GM, the first thing is that top management has to go and a re-structuring plan has to be presented within 6 weeks or California will have to go the route of Vallejo and declare bankruptcy.

That being the case, I was wondering who would come on board as new CEO/Governor. Robert Nardelli is going to be available in a couple of months when Fiat finishes its acquisition of Chrysler. Rob Blagojevich is looking for work, has run a large state and knows how to solicit funds. I don’t think either of those would do. How about Clint Eastwood? Also an actor, but he was mayor of Carmel. And he would call the situation what it is (to use the edited version)—a clusterflub.

Too big to fail? We’ve already failed. Can it be fixed? Not by continuing to put a bandaid on a hemorrhage. But nobody’s going to bail out California but Californians. Let’s start by putting the politicians on notice that we expect them to do it right—for a change.

Now, I’ve been trying to be sarcastic in an Art Buchwald kind of way (I knew I couldn’t get to Dave Barry). Governing California is like trying to herd cats. But we’ve done it to ourselves. So maybe sarcasm won’t work but it definitely helps to keep you sane