RIP President Gerald Ford

"My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age," Mrs. Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband's office in Rancho Mirage. "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."

Read the full story from AP here.

Mr. Mayor's LAUSD Powergrab is Tossed

Judge tosses out mayor's takeover of L.A. schools
A law giving Villaraigosa control over some campuses violates state Constitution, jurist says.
By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin
Times Staff Writers

December 22, 2006

A Superior Court judge Thursday struck down legislation that gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District, a stunning setback to his plans for assuming direct control of dozens of Los Angeles schools.

Judge Dzintra Janavs said the law, which would have taken effect Jan. 1, violated multiple provisions of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter. She ordered public officials "to refrain from enforcing or implementing" any part of Assembly Bill 1381, which codified Villaraigosa's powers.

The full story is here.

The best thing to do at this point would be to break up the LAUSD using a mechanism like AB 2071 proposed by Assemblyman Keith Richman last year. If the Mayor is sincere about wanting to affect schools or implement reforms in a high profile way, he could work with the district to establish charter schools – taking a high school and all of its feeder schools. Such a proposal would not have to mean that unions are “out of luck” because a charter could include a provision to honor the UTLA union contract within all of the charters; having said that, if I were Mayor Villaraigosa I would want my charter to be non-union. Such a plan, however, would not allow the Mayor to control the hiring of the Superintendent and therefore would reduce his influence over $19 billion dollars in school construction contracts.

Dan Walters is a Bigot?

More on the antics of Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, the Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee…


Dan Walters: Dymally's epithet an honor
By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The official stationery of the U.S. House of Representatives has yellowed with age, but the angry words of the letter still leap from the page.

Then-Congressman Mervyn Dymally sent the missive to this columnist in 1992 in response to a column about those retiring from California political office that year, listing Dymally among those who wouldn't "be found in the political hall of fame."

"I would have thought that time would have tempered your bigotry," Dymally wrote. "But I am told that hatefulness is a sickness, so you are to be forgiven.

The full story is a must read.

Digging Deeper

The first rule in trying to dig out of a hole… stop digging.

Dymally regrets using 'racist' label
The assemblyman was attacking a colleague probing his issuance of badges to supporters.
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
December 20, 2006

Five days after he called a fellow lawmaker "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years," Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) expressed remorse.In a four-paragraph statement to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), Dymally, an African American, said, "I have been around long enough to know that you do not mix your personal feelings with public policy. I deeply regret my statement about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, and it is my hope that this is now behind us."

So, to understand it correctly… personally, Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally believes Democrat Assemblyman Hector De La Torre is a racist; however, Mr. Dymally regrets having said it out loud and thereby injecting the accusation into "public policy". No where in the story is there any indication that Assemblyman Dymally apologized to Assemblyman De La Torre or that Mr. Dymally retracted his accusation that Mr. De La Torre is a racist.

Assembly Democrats seem to have a real problem on their hands. I wonder why this subject has not been mentioned in the leftwing Democrat blog, The California Majority Report, which regularly comments on internal Republican matters?

A Little Parody...

... always bears a little truth (unfortunately).




Zucker Takes on James Baker
David Zucker's Iraq Study Group ad from CrockettFilms.

This "Diversity Moment" brought to you by Reuters

Groups offer Web festival sacrifice
Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:34 AM ET

KARACHI (Reuters) - Religious organizations in Pakistan are using the Internet to help Muslims in Western countries buy and sacrifice animals for an annual festival. (Full story linked above.)

OAF: I can't wait to see PETA's response to this activity, if they respond. Can the radical left bring itself to criticize Muslims? (You didn't actually think I'd link to the nutcases at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals did you?)

Merry Christmas

As we all jostle around this year preparing to exchange gifts with those we love and sometimes with others (the white elephant type) let us not forget the reason for exchanging gifts this time of year. With all of the media discussion about “the war on Christmas” and the reports about the success or failure of retail outlets “during the season”, I can’t help but pray that at some point everyone will stop – take a deep breath – and rejoice in the wonder that is Christmas. Christmas - the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of Mary, Son of God, teacher and Savior.

Below is the historical accounting of the birth of Jesus as told by Luke, the beloved physician. I chose Luke because of his careful historical approach and because he endeavored to present Jesus as the Universal Savior, the compassionate healer and teacher.

This passage is from the New King James Version of the Bible; for anyone interested in reading further (or in another translation) I recommend Biblegateway.com.

Luke Chapter 2

Christ Born of Mary
1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Glory in the Highest
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “ Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. 17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. 18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.

As you hustle around and prepare for all of the worldly celebration of Christmas, take a moment to contemplate the historical birth of Jesus, and give thanks for our savior.

Merry Christmas.

A Glaring Contradiction

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally is embroiled in a ridiculous controversy over the issuing of “badges” to some of his friends and evidently campaign contributors (see previous post). In reading the stories surrounding this incident and comparing them to another incident from 2004, I couldn’t help but notice a real contradiction between Mr. Dymally’s words, his actions and well… his words. You be the judge.

Mr. Dymally’s response to law enforcement’s objection to the use of a “badge” by Mr. Dymally’s friend in an attempt to get out of a DUI arrest:

"The possession of these badges is not an illegal act," he said. "If it is, then arrest everybody. Arrest some white people too."

Mr. Dymally’s reaction to the call by Speaker Nuñez to investigate the use of "badges":

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

Mr. Dymally’s comment after he cancelled a press conference to call for the resignation of Education Secretary Richard Riordan for bizarre comments Mr. Riordan made about a little girl (the press conference was cancelled after Mr. Dymally learned the little girl was white and not black).

Dymally now says he didn't approve the press conference: "I'm one of those black politicians who doesn't think about race."

So, in your opinion: a glaring contradiction or not?

Shameful!

Head of badge investigation a 'racist,' Dymally says
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff WriterDecember 15, 2006

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

(I guess Mr. Dymally never "encountered" Democrat Senator Robert Byrd during his tenure in the House of Representatives.)

For more background on this issue, read:

Nuñez wants use of badges probed
The Assembly speaker acts after lawmaker Mervyn Dymally attracts notice by issuing the official-looking shields to supporters.
By Dan Morain and Evelyn Larrubia, Times Staff WritersDecember 13, 2006

Man held in DUI had badge issued by Dymally, police say
By Evelyn Larrubia and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers December 5, 2006

Schwarzenegger v. Schwarzenegger

Bill Saracino pens an excellent column for the California Political Review proposing a debate between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arnold Schwarzenegger - the article is a must read.

In his missive Mr. Saracino suggests that he may have been naive by supporting candidate Schwarzenegger (who claimed to be a Milton Friedman fiscal conservative). On the contrary, Mr. Saracino is anything but naive - he is a seasoned and skilled political observer and campaign consultant. His support for candidate Schwarzenegger was not born of naiveté, it was instead based upon the time-honored code of accepting a man at his word (which speaks to the better nature of Bill Saracino). Mr. Saracino underestimated the guile of Arnold Schwarzenegger and for doing that once he cannot be faulted; to do it again would be naiveté.

Reading Mr. Saracino's article reminded me of a commentary posted on OAF Blog a little over one year ago; it is worth reading again: On Governor Schwarzenegger - A Ship Without a Rudder. Interestingly, after Governor Schwarzenegger devastated all of the conservative Republican candidates seeking statewide office the question remains; who will take up the mantle of standard bearer for California Republicans?

Promoting Mediocrity

Citing Stress, School Stops Publishing Honor Roll
December 12, 2006

NEEDHAM, Mass. -- A Massachusetts school's decision has brought about mixed feelings from the community.

Needham High School has abandoned its long-standing practice of publishing the names of students who make the honor roll in the local newspaper.

Principal Paul Richards said a key reason for stopping the practice is its contribution to students' stress level in "this high-expectations-high-achievement culture."

The full story is here.


Why Not Elimitate Winners Altogether?
What next? Will schools no longer award medals to the winner of the track and field event for fear that someone might have hurt feelings? How about a new policy where every wrestler in a weight bracket gets a medal – the same medal – we wouldn’t want anyone to know that one wrester “won” the tournament.

It's Better to Recognize a Diversity of Talents
Perhaps some of the children making the honor roll at Needham High School are scholars and not athletes. Will the school no longer recognize successful athletes in order to make those who are not athletically-inclined feel less pressure to succeed in athletics? Did it ever occur to anyone that having one’s name printed in the newspaper as a member of the honor roll might be the only positive public recognition some of those children receive for their academic success?

A Better Proposal
Needham High School should follow the Loni Hancock model which proposed redefining the level of academic achievemnet neccessary to desginate a student as "proficient" in California in order to allow more students to be; well, "proficient." Under the Hancock model, all students in Needham High School could be "honor students."

A.G.-Elect Leaves Oakland “In the Dust”

From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Mattier & Ross:

Police Dept. dusting dilemma
Oakland fingerprint unit has been closed for 7 months due to lack of funds and staff

Read the full story here.


Perhaps the Oakland police department can send its fingerprint work to the California Attorney General’s office so that Jerry Brown can finally help with the crime epidemic he left behind as Mayor.

Intelligence Problem

Prolific Blogger Bill Bradley, New West Notes, on Speaker-elect Pelosi’s Intelligence Problem:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an intelligence problem. Her pick for the crucial chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes, turned out not to know basic facts about Al Qaeda, facts that most well-informed newspaper readers would know.

Read Bill Bradley’s full post here.

OAF Blog has already expressed great concern (read: here) that national security might be compromised by Speaker-elect Pelosi's decision to engage in petty personal politics – Bill Bradley seems to confirm those fears.

Political Reformers? Prove It!

Nationally, Democrats are attempting to seize the political high ground as the party of political reform. Given the decadence of Congressional Republicans during their tenure, Democrats have been presented with a magnificent opportunity to make their case. I ultimately would like to see Republicans recapture the majority, but for the sake of the nation I wish Democrats well - if only for the hope that moral integrity returns to Washington. I am not confident that it will (there is too much at stake given the size and scope of the federal government - see more on my thoughts here). But, as an eternal optimist I remain hopeful. (Those who know me are laughing out loud).

True Political Reform – Impartial Redistricting
In California Democrats have been presented with an opportunity to demonstrate that they are committed to ethics and political reform, and they can do this with the help of Republicans. Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 on Monday, the opening day of the biennial legislative session. ACA 4 provides for an independent citizens commission to draw the boundaries for California’s Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts thereby taking the process out of the hands of state legislators who, by definition, suffer a conflict of interest when drawing their own district boundaries.

The Governor, with whom Democrats have enjoyed great “bi-partisanship”, held a press conference on Tuesday to call for reform of the redistricting process, and introduce his own impartial redistricting proposal. “We must bring competition back into the political process to guarantee that our elected leaders represent the full diversity of California and the will of the people,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This is exactly the kind of political reform I promised the people of California when I became Governor three years ago. I said that we will bring the trust back to government and make our democracy strong. Last year, we came very close to getting redistricting reform done so this year I know we can do it.”

In a speech three years ago (prior to being elected Governor) Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “reapportionment of state assembly and state senate seats should be done fairly so that no political party uses the process to distort democracy and electoral districts should be drawn for the benefit of the voters, not political intrigue and advantage.”

Political Reformers? Prove It!
Given that legislative Republicans have made impartial redistricting one of their top priorities in California, and given that the “bi-partisan” Governor has advanced a similar proposal, it is time for Democrats to prove that they are truthfully committed to political reform. Redistricting affects state legislative seats and congressional seats. As a Californian, Speaker-elect Pelosi has both a personal interest and a broader political interest in how districts are drawn in the Golden State. Embracing ACA 4 or the Governor’s proposal would demonstrate Representative Pelosi’s commitment to political reform; her commitment to fair elections. It is time for Speaker-elect Pelosi to call Speaker Villaraigosa and insist that impartial redistricting be placed before the voters of California with the full support of Democrats.

To do anything less means that even with all the lip-service about political reform, Speaker-elect Pelosi and California Democrats are no different than former Congressman Tom DeLay.

News on Legislative Republican Infighting

It seems the best place to find internal news and gossip about legislative Republicans in California is from the Democrats at the Majority Report.

Perhaps some Democrat would be kind enough to share their dirty laundry to Republicans so they can then put it on display for the rest of California. Maybe the folks at the California Republican Assembly could spice up their blog with such information.

A Good Op-Ed from Sunny San Diego

The San Diego Union-Tribune published this excellent op-ed today, just two days after OAF Blog wrote on the same subject with a very similar headline. Hmm, I wonder if the editors of the Union-Tribune read OAF Blog?

Reforms must precede windfall for education
UNION-TRIBUNE
December 3, 2006

...Elizabeth Hill, the state's respected, neutral legislative analyst, recently issued a five-year budget forecast. The news for schools was staggering: Taxpayers are about to hand an extra $6 billion to educators.

...Parents should get vouchers to spend at private or public schools, thus ensuring healthy competition that would slash wasteful administration. Good teachers should get bonus pay, mediocre teachers should be reassigned, and bad teachers should find new careers. Districts must stop covering up horrendous drop-out rates.

Voters have decided to invest in their children. Sacramento must not fail them.

School Reform Must Come First – Choice is the Best Answer

The following story from Inside Bay Area.com chronicles the hopes of California Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell that an independent study carried out by researchers mostly from Stanford University will divine how much “it costs to educate a student.” Mr. O’Connell and other members of the public education spending lobby are hoping that the “Getting Down to Facts” study will be the catalyst by which state legislators are duped into believing that throwing more money into the current public school system will result in better educated students.

Here is an excerpt from the story (please honor the writer by clicking on the headline and reading the full article):

O'Connell searches for the true cost of education
California superintendent hopes $2.6 million study drives funding of state's schools
By Grace Rauh, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
Article Last Updated:12/01/2006 02:56:56 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO — For years it has been a rhetorical question. But for the first time this spring, Californians may finally get an answer. Exactly how much does it cost to properly educate a child?

"We actually asked what is the actual cost to educate a student," O'Connell told the crowd. "I hope that (the answer) really drives the discussions in Sacramento."

… The $2.6 million study responsible for uncovering this elusive answer was funded by four foundations and led by Stanford University. O'Connell, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders commissioned the research and the results should be released in two to three months.

"I hope it's a benchmark," O'Connell said after his speech, from the floor of an education trade show taking place alongside the conference. "I hope it's more than a study that is placed on the shelf. I hope it drives education funding."

… California voters support spending more money on public schools, but only if there is greater accountability over how that funding is dispensed, according to a new statewide poll released Thursday by Children Now, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Oakland.

… "There's not a big divide in the electorate in terms of making major changes in education," said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now. "They are saying loud and clear that the system is unacceptable and we need major change in California."

For Lempert, the key to the polling results is the realization that voters want education reform and financial accountability. They are saying, "Let's do both. Let's do them together. Let's get them done," he said.


Mr. Lempert is correct, and the polling (some of which I have seen) is correct; voters do want major changes in education and they want the system to improve. The answer, however, cannot be more taxpayer funds coupled with window-dressing reforms to “make finance more transparent” or “hold schools accountable.”

For example, when Proposition 98 was passed, it contained an accountability tool for schools to make taxpayers more aware of how schools use money and how students are performing (that’s one way the spending lobby sold Prop. 98 to voters). The tool contained in Prop. 98 is the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) – you know that all important document you have read and studied to determine the success of schools in your area. If you haven’t read one, you can find it here. Good luck in finding any meaningful accountability. How many failing schools have been shut down due to the imformation on the SARC?

Legislators – and probably this task will fall on Republicans (Democrats are too beholden to the California Teachers Association, the teachers union) - should use the call for additional spending to foster meaningful education reform in California. They should instist that meaningful reform must be enacted before any additional taxpayer funds are dumped into the public school monopoly.

The first and most meaningful reform would be to provide parents with a choice on where they send their child to school. If, as the “Getting Down to Facts” study has been advertised, researchers can determine “the actual cost to educate a student” then quantifying an opportunity scholarship (or school voucher) should be easy. Meaningful reform would attach the “actual cost of educating a student” to each student who would then have the option to take that money and spend it at a traditional public school, a chartered public school, a private school, or even a home school. Any school that receives funds through an opportunity scholarship should agree to be judged through a value-added analysis of student performance on core academic subjects (reading language arts and math) as a means to qualify to receive those funds. Beyond the basics, schools could specialize in classical liberal arts, vocational education, college preparation, fine arts, etc. Schools that succeed in educating students would flourish and those who don’t would be weeded out through analysis of student performance and the marketplace.

Without meaningful reform, more money will not improve education in California.

Pelosi to Harman: Jane you ignorant...

Pelosi chooses Reyes to run intel panel
Speaker passes over committee's senior Democrat Harman

MSNBC posts the story(linked above) of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi’s snubbing of fellow Californian Jane Harman by choosing Texas Representative Silvestre Reyes to Chair the House Intelligence Committee (OK, stop the snickering – I know it’s an oxymoron).

Rep. Harman is too Conservative?
Much of the speculation about why Representative Pelosi chose to dump a fellow Californian and – dare I say – woman from the important assignment of chairing the House Intelligence Committee centers on the idea that Harman is too conservative or too close to the Bush administration on military issues, and specifically Iraq. Is Representative Harman too conservative for Representative Pelosi? Could that be the reason? Let’s compare Representative Harman to Ms. Pelosi's choice, Representative Reyes.

Interest Group Ratings
American Conservative Union lifetime rating:
Harman 30% - Reyes 27%
Americans for Democratic Action (liberal) for 2005:
Harman 70% - Reyes 80%
American Security Council 2003-04 (focus on nat’l security):
Harman 40% - Reyes 50%

109th Congress Key National Security Votes
S. 3930 – Military Commissions Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 5825 – Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act;
Harman No / Reyes: No
H.R. 6061 – Secure Fence Act;
Harman No / Reyes No
H.Res. 861 – A Resolution pledging support for the war in Iraq;
Harman: No / Reyes No
H.R. 4437 – Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 2863 – Ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of detainees;
Harman: Yes / Reyes: Yes

By interest group and key votes comparisons there appears to be little difference between Ms. Harman and Mr. Reyes. So, if they are evenly aligned on issues of national security and both semi-moderate Democrats why did Ms. Pelosi actually choose Rep. Reyes over Rep. Harman? Probably a more personal issue; some speculate it really boils down to jealousy over the level of recognition Jane Harman has in California over Ms. Pelosi. Democrats won’t talk about this issue because, according to the L.A. times, “…the split is so toxic that Democrats in California and Washington won't go near it.”

Security Should not be Compromised for Petty Reasons
I am not deeply involved in the area of national security and intelligence and therefore I concede that my knowledge is minimal in this area. But, given the similarities in their interest group ratings and key votes I am not confident that national security has been damaged by choosing Representative Reyes over Representative Harman. (The damage was done on Election Day which gave Ms. Pelosi the option to name committee chairs for the 110th Congress).

My concern, more than anything, is that national security should not be held captive by petty matters of personality conflicts or partisan gamesmanship.

For example, the rejection by Democrats to confirm John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. By all accounts, Ambassador Bolton has been doing a great job; and yet Democrats are still arguing that he is just not warm and fuzzy enough for their taste.

Congress must return to a day when politics stops at the border. A day when Democrats and Republicans joined together to defend America, and they did so without regard to how it might affect their electoral or personal fortunes. As a nation, we need to honor and promote statesmen and reject those who would use their position of power to carry out personal vendettas or allow the prospect of political gain to trump the need to further our nation’s security.

Whatever Ms. Pelosi’s reasons are for snubbing Representative Harman, they should be spelled out for America. We should be reassured that she did not make a decision about our nation’s security based upon petty personal reasons.