Old American For Freedom Blog

A Timely Return

2011-10-27T22:16:00.000-07:00

It's been a couple of years since I have taken to the keyboard to vent a little, teach a little or just try to get a laugh. I am not sure how much time I will spend updating OAF Blog, but I think it might be worth checking back on occasion.

Yours in Freedom,

~OAF

Econ 101 - Profits

2011-10-27T21:36:00.000-07:00

In his recent column, Profits are for People, Walter Williams schools the left on the role of profits as a tool of correction that serves the interest of people. This concept is lost on many of those involved in the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations as they call for the nationalization of industries with the hope that socialism will satisfy the needs of society. But, anyone who understands economics and the human spirit knows that without the hope of profit and the risk of failure there is no need for business or industry to meet the demands of people. I am reminded of when I traveled to East Berlin when it was still under the control of the Soviet Union; at the general store I could choose from a large variety of boots (if you consider multiple sizes a "variety"), and I could get them in my favorite color so long as it was black or brown. There was no need to make boots to meet my desire, they just had to make enough boots to meet their quota set by central planners in the government. Well, enough of my fond memories of shopping behind the "Iron Curtain" and on to the far more salient thoughts of Professor Williams...

Profits Are for People

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are demanding "people before profits" -- as if profit motivation were the source of mankind's troubles -- when it's often the absence of profit motivation that's the true villain.

First, let's get both the definition and magnitude of profits out of the way. Profits represent the residual claim earned by entrepreneurs. They're what are left after other production costs -- such as wages, rent and interest -- have been paid. Profits are the payment for risk taking, innovation and decision-making. As such, they are a cost of business just as are wages, rent and interest. If those payments are not made, labor, land and capital will not offer their services. Similarly, if profit is not paid, entrepreneurs won't offer theirs. Historically, corporate profits range between 5 and 8 cents of each dollar, and wages range between 50 and 60 cents of each dollar.

Far more important than simple statistics about the magnitude of profits is the role played by profits, namely that of forcing producers to cater to the wants and desires of the common man. When's the last time we've heard widespread complaints about our clothing stores, supermarkets, computer stores or appliance stores? We are far likelier to hear people complaining about services they receive from the post office, motor vehicle and police departments, boards of education and other government agencies. The fundamental difference between the areas of general satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the pursuit of profits is present in one and not the other.

The pursuit of profits forces producers to be attentive to the will of their customers, simply because the customer of, say, a supermarket can fire it on the spot by taking his business elsewhere. If a state motor vehicle department or post office provides unsatisfactory services, it's not so easy for dissatisfied customers to take action against it. If a private business had as many dissatisfied customers as our government schools have, it would have long ago been out of business.

Free market capitalism is unforgiving. Producers please customers, in a cost-minimizing fashion, and make a profit, or they face losses or go bankrupt. It's this market discipline that some businesses seek to avoid. That's why they descend upon Washington calling for crony capitalism -- government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges. They wish to reduce the power of consumers and stockholders, who hold little sympathy for blunders and will give them the ax on a moment's notice.

Having Congress on their side means business can be less attentive to the will of consumers. Congress can keep them afloat with bailouts, as it did in the cases of General Motors and Chrysler, with the justification that such companies are "too big to fail." Nonsense! If General Motors and Chrysler had been allowed to go bankrupt, it wouldn't have meant that their productive assets, such as assembly lines and tools, would have gone poof and disappeared into thin air. Bankruptcy would have led to a change in ownership of those assets by someone who might have managed them better. The bailout enabled them to avoid the full consequences of their blunders.

By the way, we often hear people say, with a tone of saintliness, "We're a nonprofit organization," as if that alone translates into decency, objectivity and selflessness. They want us to think they're in it for the good of society and not for those "evil" profits. If we gave it just a little thought and asked what kind of organization throughout mankind's history has accounted for his greatest grief, the answer wouldn't be a free market, private, profit-making enterprise; it would be government, the largest nonprofit organization.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters are following the path predicted by the great philosopher-economist Frederic Bastiat, who said in "The Law" that "instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general." In other words, the protesters don't want to end crony capitalism, with its handouts and government favoritism; they want to participate in it.

Oh, I Get It...

2008-04-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, actually almost always, it is necssary to explain a joke to my teenaged daughter who is brilliant, but a little slow on the uptake. It's a charming thing actually; she laughs at the joke and then looks quizzically into the abyss as she tries to noodle it out. That's when I have to explain the joke, and then she laughs again. It is cute and harmless; it's not so funny, however, when adults are so callow that they take years to noodle out the obvious, and it’s even less funny when it’s not a joke.

The guest editorial, It's a Full Moon And The Governor's Transformation Is Complete by Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that ran on the FlashReport yesterday caused me to think of my teenaged daughter. The op-ed (see excerpt below) was enjoyable, but it is necessary to take issue with the characterization that a “transformation” has occurred; that presumes that Governor Schwarzenegger started out as one thing and became another. This has been a subject on OAF Blog before and it remains amazing that anyone is shocked by any decision made by this Governor. Sadly, it appears that what is occurring is a final recognition of the mistake made by so many who lined up behind the “we gotta get a win” mantra when they helped elect Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor in 2003. Like the second laugh that occurs once my teenaged daughter "gets it," there is a certain amount of satisfaction in the awakening by those who are finally "getting it" about Arnold Schwarzenegger; only it's just not that funny (and it comes with significant costs).

IT'S A FULL MOON AND THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSFORMATION IS COMPLETE
by Jon Coupal

We are all familiar with those scary movies where the seemingly nice guy morphs into a threatening monster over a very short time.

Excuse me if I now find myself thinking of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his real life role as California Governor.

With his announcing yesterday that he would oppose Proposition 98, which would protect property owners from eminent domain abuse and provide additional property rights protections, the governor's transformation is complete.

His change was so quick that some may have missed it.

So let's look back to 2003, when citizen Schwarzenegger was running to replace an unpopular governor who was being recalled, largely because of his inability to manage the state budget that was billions of dollars in the red.

Schwarzenegger promised a bright future with strict fiscal discipline.

The state must live within its means, he said.

The budget must be balanced without tax increases.

He promised to "blow up the boxes" -- that is, consolidate government departments and programs and seek every available economy and efficiency in the provision of state services.

"We don't have a revenue problem," he famously declared, "we have a spending problem!"

Since Schwarzenegger took office, little has changed in state government, but the governor no longer resembles that citizen politician he promised to be.

In the last four years, revenue has increased by 29% while spending is up by 36% and the state faces, by conservative estimates, a $16 billion deficit.

Somewhere Gray Davis is chuckling.

(read the full op-ed here.)

Another Example of Limousine Liberal Disconnect

2007-10-11T15:40:00.000-07:00

Look at the two pictures below and ask yourself; in which community would I feel at greater risk of contracting a communicable disease? The fact that Democrats in Congress sought immunizations before attending a NASCAR event is one more example of just how thoroughly disconnected they are from middle America. I wonder if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets immunized before and after visiting her home in San Francisco?

NASCAR Fans

San Francisco

NASCAR cooties
Audrey Hudson, Homeland Security reporter, The Washington Times

House Homeland Security Committee staffers are on a peculiar mission to study "public health issues at events involving mass gatherings," which has personally insulted Rep. Robin Hayes of Concord, North Carolina.

The event: NASCAR.

The rub: the requirement that the Democrat and Republican staffers attending first be immunized against Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, tetanus, diphtheria, and influenza.

"I have never heard of immunizations for domestic travel, and as the representative for Concord, North Carolina, I feel compelled to ask why the heck the committee feels that immunizations are needed to travel to my hometown," Mr. Hayes, a Republican, said in a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and committee chairman.

"I have been to numerous NASCAR races, and the folks who attend these events certainly do not pose any health hazard to congressional staffers or anyone else," Mr. Hayes said.

A committee staffer says that the Republican staffers have declined the shots but that two Democrat staffers were immunized before attending the race at Talladega last weekend.

A phone call to the committee spokesman was not returned.

That’s Just so Middle Class

2007-10-11T13:48:00.000-07:00

Or, it’s All About Me.

The jet-setting “middle class” Speaker of the California Assembly has asked for each of his Assembly Democrat colleagues to donate $50,000 to an initiative that will allow him to serve an additional six years as Speaker. $50,000, that’s just so middle class; everyone knows that anything less than $100,000 is chump change.

The Speaker's press flack, Steve Maviglio says that the Speaker supports the term limits extension because it will make “the Legislature more effective…” It causes one to wonder; more effective at what? Shopping? Perhaps finding a really good deal on Berluti shoes in London?

Núñez's Prop. 93 plea to caucus
Speaker privately asks all Assembly Dems to donate $50,000 each to term limits measure.
By Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee
10/11/07

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez privately has asked all 47 Assembly Democrats to donate about $50,000 apiece to help pass an initiative that could give all of them extra time in office.

The measure, Proposition 93, would reduce the total number of years that an elected official could serve in the Legislature -- from 14 to 12 -- but provide at least one extra term for incumbents.

Núñez solicited his Democratic caucus at a breakfast meeting Aug. 30 at Chops restaurant near the Capitol, but the session was private and details were unknown until Wednesday.

The issue surfaced after campaign disclosure statements showed identical $50,000 donations, each filed Sept. 8, from Assembly Democrats Karen Bass of Los Angeles and Ted Lieu of Torrance.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma of San Francisco filed documents Tuesday showing her campaign gave a $45,000 contribution to the term limits initiative, which will appear on the Feb. 5 ballot.

"The speaker believes this campaign is about making the Legislature more effective and reducing the amount of time that legislators stay in office," Steve Maviglio, Núñez's spokesman, said of the measure.

But Kevin Spillane, spokesman for the anti-Proposition 93 campaign, blasted Núñez's actions as "an obvious sign that this initiative isn't about strengthening term limits."

"It's written by political insiders, and it benefits political insiders," he said. "It's an incumbent protection initiative -- and the incumbents are ponying up their dues so they can stay in office longer."

…The full story is here.

Political Vanguard on Speaker Nunez

2007-10-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

This is funny. A hearty thank you to Tom Del Beccaro at Political Vanguard for this contribution:

Pv's Humorous Take On Politics . . . .

Democrat Assembly Leader Fabian Nunez Has Been Living the High Life Using Campaign Funds for $47,000 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year, $5,149 for a meeing at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine cave in the Bordeaux region of France , and over $2,500 at Louis Vuitton in Paris for what he described as office expenses. Beyond that he has spent nearly $13,000 in florist purchases, nearly $3,000 in limousine services, nearly $1,000 in rare collectibles purchases, over $1,100 in personal reading purchases, over $1,250 in high-end cookie purchases, over $1,100 in fine and rare wine purchases, over $13,500 in payments to Janine Schwartz described as everything from "petty cash" to "civic donations," and more than $10,000 in additional travel expenses.

PV wondered why and now we know . . .

PV's Top 10 Fabian Nunez expense explanations

10. I DID fly to France to buy wine. But it was California wine, I swear!

9. $9000 for a hotel in Barcelona? I knew those money changers were ripping me off!

8. You mean to tell that the middle class doesn't eat cavier?

7. $400 for a John Edwards hair cut? Looks pretty good right about now, doesn't it?

6. Come on . . . I really can't use those $699 stamps to mail campaign literature?

5. $5,149 for a meeting in a cave? At least it was cheaper than the hotel.

4. Yeah I flew to Europe and shopped. But those Vuittons were totally knock offs.

3. Trip to Sweden: to study universal preschool. Trip to Spain: to see high speed rail. Trip to Coloseum: to study throwing christians to the lions.

2. Hsu defense fund, Perata defense fund, Jerry brown defense fund, Sandy Berger defense fund, William Jefferson defense fund........

1. $13,000 in Flower purchases: I felt bad for Antonio's girls, so I gave each, a flower.

Special thanks to talk radio host Inga Barks of KERN Radio & KMJ radio and Hector Barajas for their help with this column.

Rare - That's How California Democrats Serve It

2007-10-09T15:28:00.000-07:00

Democrat flack site, The California Majority Report, regularly posts a summary of news under the title "Today's Fresh Meat." One can't help but notice, however, how rare it is for the Democrat spin doctors to include meaty issues about their employers. For example, the latest news on the middle-class Assembly Speaker and his high-roller lifestyle. I guess maybe that meat is a little too red for their taste.

Shameless Self Promotion

2007-10-09T12:37:00.000-07:00

This is a "re-post" from the past, but worth repeating.

It dawns on me that someone might actually be reading OAF Blog on occasion. If you are, and you like what you read, please feel free to let your friends know. Also, just because I get a little lonely - well, not lonely actually, but because I like a healthy discussion, please feel free to leave comments. My rule on comments is that I will not moderate them unless they are inappropriate (foul - after all, my children read this blog sometimes) or an unfounded personal attack on somebody. I also encourage you to use your blog name or choose a name - a quirky or fun name is better than "anonymous." Finally, if you do leave comments, check back - I usually reply.

OK, enough shameless self promotion (actually, this is all about my self esteem).

They Just Can't Help Themselves

2007-10-09T12:25:00.000-07:00

No wonder politicians in Sacramento are trying to fool the voters into granting them an extension of their term limits. While it would be easy to write extensive commentary about this subject, it is not necessary because the mainstream media has actually done a pretty good job of covering the issue.

Politicians living large under fire
By Dan Walters - Sacramento Bee Columnist
10/9/07

When Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez launched their drive to change legislative term limits and thus extend their reigns in the Capitol, they made themselves and their conduct legitimate subjects for media scrutiny. So far they aren't faring very well.

…An intensive analysis of campaign finance records ... shows that California's most powerful Democratic politician has a long history of living large on money raised for his various campaigns," the newspaper said in its article by Robert Gammon, adding that over the previous decade he had spent "more than $1 million on parties and high-end lifestyle expenditures."

Last Friday, Núñez's hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, weighed in with a remarkably similar account of how he, too, has been living large on his campaign funds.

"As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Núñez has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to some of the finest hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris," Times reporter Nancy Vogel wrote, adding that "the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures."

Read the full article here.

Nuñez middle class? Boy, that's rich
Steve Lopez - Los Angles Times
10/7/07

If he crashes and burns in politics, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez could have a great future as a travel agent.

As my colleague Nancy Vogel laid out in a jaw-dropping exposé Friday, L.A.'s man of the people has not missed a trick while traveling extensively and luxuriously about the world, throwing campaign funds around like confetti.

Italy. France. Spain.

Our very own rascal in paradise has been there, and he's tasted the world's finest offerings.

A $1,795 meal in Paris. An $8,745 hotel bill in Barcelona. A $5,149 meeting at a Bordeaux wine shop.

"There's not too big a difference," Nuñez told Vogel, "between how I live and how most middle-class people live."

Hands down, it's the quote of the year.

I'm not sure what middle-class people Nuñez is talking about, but I'm worried that he's spending entirely too much time with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Could the speaker be talking about Brentwood's middle-class?

We're talking lifestyles of the rich and famous here, not Applebee's and Ramada. Nuñez may even be trying to compete with Schwarzenegger, who's been using an obscure nonprofit group to finance lavish overseas travel involving private jets and exclusive hotels, as detailed recently by my colleague Paul Pringle.

Read the full article here.

While they can't help themselves, but they do scurry from the light like... well, you know.

Update: Underwriting Perversion

2007-10-03T11:35:00.000-07:00

When I posted the commentary Underwriting Perversion, I promised to update OAF readers (all several of you) about any communications I received from Miller Brewing Company in relation to my inquiry about their corporate sponsorship of the Folsom Street Fair.

The following is the text of a message I received this morning in my email box:

Thank you for contacting Miller Brewing Company.

While Miller has supported the Folsom Street Fair for several years, we take exception to the poster the organizing committee developed this year. We understand some individuals may find the imagery offensive and we have asked the organizers to remove our logo from the poster effective immediately.

We regret that our failure to adhere to our own policy led to an inappropriate use of our trademark and apologize to anyone who was offended as a result, particularly members of the Christian community who have contacted us to express their concern.

We are conducting an immediate audit of our procedures for approving local marketing and sales sponsorships to ensure that this does not happen again.

It is important to understand that the Folsom Street Fair does not target the general public in its communications. The fair itself and the organization’s website are only intended for the adult alternative lifestyle community.

Sincerely, Miller Brewing Company Consumer Affairs Department

While I am thankful for to Miller for their reply and their promise to audit / review their procedures for approving local marketing and sales sponsorship, it appears that they are still fixated on their logo being on the offensive poster. My request was that the company not sponsor the event in the future; I will wait to see if Miller is a sponsor next year.

Also, I have to take issue with the assertion that the Folsom Street Fair and its website are only intended for the adult community. With due respect, anyone - anyone - can access the website without any screening for age (even Miller asks people to say they are 21 y.o. before entering their own website). Further, links to sponsors of the fair provide access to graphic nudity without any type of age screening. To imply that this is a "closed" venue is incorrect.

To reiterate, there is no attempt to request government intervention or censorship here; rather, it is merely a request that a responsible company not sponsor, and therefore promote, such filth.

The Art of the Smear

2007-10-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

This one is “twofer”

Democrats, who fear democracy like an aulophobic fears a flute, have launched a smear campaign against Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and the Presidential Election Reform Act, a proposed initiative that would alter the allocation of California’s electoral votes.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, Democrats want the federal government to investigate the electoral college ballot initiative and its supporters (read the article here). The article reports that “Democratic Party activists” have filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission seeking a Department of Justice investigation and alleging that Giulani engaged in “money laundering” to support the ballot initiative.

The purpose of the complaint isn’t to actually ferret out any real criminal activity; according to the Democrat activists the real purpose is “to send a message to any Republicans who might consider reviving the measure.” What message; that Democrat activists will threaten you if you attempt to engage in the democratic process?

Democrats have pulled out all the stops to kill this initiative "in the cradle" and in doing so have also smeared GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani – that is what is commonly referred to as a “twofer”.

Folsom Street Fair

2007-10-01T12:45:00.000-07:00

A reminder of what’s wrong in San Francisco

As San Francisco winds down from this year’s “grand daddy of all leather events”, the Folsom Street Fair, it brings to mind an OAF commentary posted in January of 2006 titled, Where Have All the Children Gone? There is no need to reiterate what was written in that previous commentary. Instead, I’ll just remind Mayor Newsom that he does not need an advisory group to determine why families with children are fleeing the city by the bay; he merely needs to attend any number of the city’s “festivals” to understand why responsible adults with children would choose to live elsewhere. The following story from the San Francisco Chronicle is self-explanatory.

Folks in leather, chaps and thongs throng Folsom Street Fair
Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, October 1, 2007

It's not usually polite to stare, but Phil "Tats" Payton doesn't mind being ogled. When you're a 69-year-old man covered in more than 100 tattoos - including all over your bald head - and sporting a leather vest, chaps and a nose ring a few inches in diameter, it comes with the territory.

"I've gotten used to it," he said as he was stopped by strangers asking to take his photograph. "It's my own fault - I can't blame anyone else."

Payton and others bedecked in leather - or in many cases, nothing at all - were the stars of Sunday's 24th annual Folsom Street Fair. The San Francisco rite is a celebration of leather culture and sexual fetishism, and draws not only those who enjoy the lifestyle, but also those who enjoy gawking at them.

"This is like Disneyland - you'll never see anything like this in the world," said Jaeleen Bennis, who in her long skirt and tank top could just as easily have been shopping at Bloomingdale's.

Folsom Street, once a gay hub with bathhouses and sex clubs, is now filled with restaurants, condos and furniture stores. But on the last Sunday of September, it shuts down between Seventh and 12th streets as thousands of people pack the festival, which raises money for charity.

This year was no different, as couples led each other up and down the street with dog collars and leashes, men in thong underwear played Twister, women in stilettos and fishnet stockings spilled out of their corsets, and shoppers browsed stalls selling products such as baseball caps reading "Master" or "Slave" and a book entitled "Dungeon Emergencies and Supplies." (Emphasis added.)

"Very painful - very nice," said a woman as she fingered a "Stingy little pocket paddle" that came in red or black.

In the next stall over, Rodger Rosenberg explained why it's much more enjoyable to be tied up with rope made of 100 percent silk than rope made of nylon or hemp. By noon, he already had sold silk ropes to people from England, Ireland and Spain.

Tom Maiolo came all the way from Tampa, Fla., for his first Folsom Street Fair. Wearing a leather vest and chaps with no pants, he said at noon that he was already having a fabulous time. (Emphasis added.)

"So far, so good," he said. "I love this, and I'm just getting started."

He said he recognized some stars of porn movies he had seen and said they were like celebrities to him. Asked if they would ever hold an event like this in Tampa, he said, "No. Hardly."

People paid money to be flogged in front of crowds of onlookers. One man looked like he was crying, and red lash marks covered his back. (Emphasis added.)

"Lovely start to a Sunday afternoon!" exclaimed a man with a microphone trying to persuade people to get flogged.

Two women who said their screen names are Zoe Zane and Andrea Storm dressed as dirty martinis in teeny silver dresses shaped like martini glasses and bra cups decorated like green olives.

"It's totally fun," Storm said. "I don't get very far because I keep getting photographed. I feel like I'm on the red carpet."

Not everybody was into the scene, though. Jason Reed stood in boots and a thong and posed for pictures outside a stall run by SX Video, which makes gay porn movies.

"I'm just here to work - it's not really my thing," said Reed, who works in the company's marketing department. "They think I look good, so they want me to walk around in a jockstrap."
He got a good view of all the passers-by - sometimes, too good a view.

"Some of them who walk around naked really shouldn't be," he said.

Inside the stall was a wall of dildos and leather hoods. Bob Findle, the company's creative director, said it's fun to see people come from all over the world for a true San Francisco event.

This is what San Francisco's about - being crazy and expressing yourself," he said. "Where else could you do this?" (Emphasis added.)

One parting thouht: despite the exodus of families with children living in San Francisco, it appears there is no end to those who behave like toddlers; that is, those who still have not learned what is appropriate or in appropriate public behavior.

Is there a bear in the woods?

2007-09-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

While we appropriately fight against the evil and expansionist Islamo-Facists, we must not forget to keep an eye on the bear. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2005 by Anders Aslund should provide those who are paying any attention with concern. Further, the violence perpetrated against those who criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his drift away from relations with the West is chronicled in numerous reports from writers of all political and philosophical persuasions. The question is, do our political leaders appropriately recognize this threat and take it seriously? Perhaps it is time to run the old Reagan advertisement to remind them:

Underwriting perversion

2007-09-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

I generally don’t engage in promoting boycotts based upon the politics or even social positions of various companies; except, of course, anything associated with the treasonous Jane Fonda.

Having said that, I am now declaring that unless Miller Brewing Company withdraws its support of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair (billed as the "world's largest leather event") I will never wet my palate with a Miller product again. This is not much of a sacrifice on a personal level because my beer of choice comes from Colorado. But, I will resist allowing any of the number of organizations I am involved to purchase Miller products for events, and I will decline the offer of any Miller product and explain my reasons to the generous host.

Miller is the major sponsor of the Folsom Street Fair, and I have written and asked that they withdraw their support. The following story explains my consternation.

California Taxpayers Subsidize Gay Mockery of Last Supper

Organizers of San Francisco’s hedonistic Folsom Street Fair -- sponsored by Miller Brewing, Co. -- have portrayed Christ and His disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement. The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.

Read the full story at Human Events.

UPDATE:
The media relations department at Miller Brewing Company has indicated that the company does not support the offensive poster (above) and that Miller has asked that their logo be removed from the poster immediately. This did not satisfy this consumer, so I submitted an email asking if Miller will remove its corporate funding of this offensive event. I'll keep OAF readers (all several of you) posted about any response I receive from Miller.

Grading the Governor

2007-09-25T10:47:00.000-07:00

Working with Senator Dennis Hollingsworth and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, FlashReport (FR) has compiled the FR's 2007 Top Twenty Bills the Governor Should Veto. FR will track the bills and issue a letter grade to the Governor based upon his actions. OAF readers (all several of you) should check in at FR daily and monitor the status of the actions of California’s “post-partisan” Governor. Does anyone wish to hazard a guess on what grade will be earned?

Good Advice

2007-09-24T10:56:00.000-07:00

In this video advertisement Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney offers good advice.

OAF Blog has offered similar thoughts:

Ethics Reform in Congress

An Essential Read for Republican Partisans

Wayward Republicans Need to Return to Core Principles

Good Advice from Mr. Speaker

Accountability and school choice are benefits for children

2007-09-20T11:54:00.000-07:00

The following story from the San Francisco Chronicle highlights not a failure, but a success in public education; a success that has only been achieved by allowing public charter schools to be opened in spite of huge opposition by the monopolistic “education coalition” (non-charter public school advocates).

Why would one call the closing of two charter schools a success? Simply put, because the failing schools were closed, and the students will be required to find new schools. Ask yourself, when was the last time a traditional non-charter public school required to close due to academic failure? It doesn’t happen; instead, the state calls them “high priority schools” and gives them more money.

As a society we would be better off if we allowed more choice in education and then held schools truly accountable for providing an education to children; charter schools are one positive development toward that goal.

2 Oakland charter schools ordered to shut down
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, September 20, 2007

(09-19) 22:09 PDT Oakland -- A pair of space-themed Oakland charter schools with roughly 80 students between them must shut down because of substandard instruction and low enrollment, the state Board of Education voted Tuesday, upholding a school district decision.

The Space Exploration Academy high school and the Junior Space Exploration Academy middle school had been open just five months when the Oakland Unified School District decided in February to shut them down.

School officials appealed the decision to the state Board of Education. Tuesday's board vote means today will be the last day the schools can operate.

The schools - which offered classes from sixth through tenth grade - had enrolled far fewer than the 200 students promised, according to district documents.

Classes were also in disarray, said administrators who made unscheduled visits last fall.
"The sixth-grade math instructor did not probe for understanding, explain erroneous answers, or engage nonrespondents," according to a report by Liane Zimny, then the head of the district's charter schools, who visited the schools in November with Kimberly Statham, then the state administrator for Oakland schools.

Zimny reported that the ninth-grade had few books and no textbooks. The task list on the blackboard had a misspelled word - "d-e-f-i-n-a-t-l-y" - and instructed students to do work that was far below grade level, such as writing the word "find" four times in cursive, Zimny wrote.

The science lab was also not operating, and "a large, dirty rag was on the floor of the multipurpose room where students ate lunch," she reported.

In all, both schools failed to fulfill 15 of 33 operating conditions, according to district records.

"We're disappointed," said Camron Gorguinpour, the schools' executive director. "I'm particularly concerned that there was little discussion about the actual merits of our school - especially in light of positive test scores that both of our schools received."

The schools enrolled only two grades last school year: sixth and ninth. State records show that of 29 sixth-graders who took the state's English language-arts test in the spring, 17 percent scored at grade level or above. Of the 15 ninth-graders who took the English test, 47 percent scored at grade level or above.

Gorguinpour, who said he is mystified about why the district tried to close the school before the scores were in, had disputed each of the district's allegations in a February memo. He said the administrators were making snap judgments based on insufficient time observing classes and without giving the school enough time to respond to its requests.

Gorguinpour's Web site says he holds bachelor's degrees in physics and astrophysics from UC Berkeley. The site also describes him as president and co-founder of a Berkeley educational nonprofit group called Space Science Outreach and Research, listed in state records as the schools' sponsoring agency.

The schools' Web site says that NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View is "involved in the development and operation of the Space Exploration Academies," promising professional development programs for its teachers.

Gorguinpour appealed the district's February decision to revoke its charter. On Tuesday, the state Board of Education voted 6-0 to uphold the district's decision.

District officials said they will help the Space Exploration Academies' students find other schools to attend.

Make way for Moonbeam

2007-09-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

Sacramento Bee columnist, Dan Walters, paints an accurate picture of Attorney General “Moonbeam” Brown today in a column regarding the bogus lawsuit that would assign blame to auto manufacturers for global warming. Walters writes, “Brown, meanwhile, clearly wants to return to the governorship three years hence and will use global warming as his vehicle. That's why, for instance, he's been suing, or threatening to sue, local governments for their alleged failure to consider global warming in their development planning.”

“Cynical? Of course, but classic Jerry Brown, who has always sought to exploit the currently trendy issue, whatever it might be.”

The Walters column highlights the cynical and exploitative actions of now-Treasurer Bill Lockyer and AG Moonbeam – it is really worth a read: Auto suit unmasked as a stunt.

I am not sure which frightens me more, that Moonbeam wants to be Governor again; or, that the people of California would actually elect him to anything.

Post-partisan Schwarzenegger purges all remnants of conservatism that plagued him during his quest for election

2007-09-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

He ran as a “blow up the boxes” fiscal conservative, garnering the support of “win at any cost” Republicans, and then:

Led the year of “post-partisan” legislative liberalism, enacted major government regulations on business and promoted nanny-state social liberalism.

Crushed his fellow Republicans during a statewide reelection campaign to ensure “post-partisan” Democrat hegemony in Sacramento.

Proved that he has absolutely no core principles by breaking the one promise that seemed to be believable – embracing tax increases.

Does the following demonstrate political hypocrisy, lack of any principles, political expediency, or all of the above? You be the judge:

Candidate Schwarzenegger
"I feel the people of California have been punished enough. From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet they're taxed. When they go get a coffee they're taxed. When they get in their car they're taxed. When they go to the gas station they're taxed. When they go to lunch they're taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, August 20, 2003

Newly-Elected Governor Schwarzenegger
“A tax increase would be the final nail in California's financial coffin. The people of California did not elect me to destroy jobs and businesses by raising taxes.” Governor Schwarzenegger, State of the State, January 6, 2004

Social and Economic Liberal "post-partisan" Arnold Schwarzenegger
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said he's open to a general tax increase to pay for health care for the uninsured, but will leave it to voters to decide. The governor, who has adamantly opposed proposed tax hikes in the past, told a Capitol news conference, "I never close the door on anything." Sacramento Bee, Governor talks of health care tax 9/18/07.

Hopefully, Republicans in Sacramento read Philip Klein's post-election analysis and will prove to the people of California that genuine Republicans still stand for less government and more freedom.

A Rose is a Rose

2007-01-10T09:37:00.000-08:00

The great debate over whether Governor Schwarzenegger’s health insurance mandate includes a tax increase or not is raging at the FlashReport in articles penned by Jon Coupal from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Mike Genest who serves as the Governor’s Finance Director. I commend both columns to the few who actually read this blog:

Dead Parrots and Tax Increases by Jon Coupal; and the less creatively titled

Governor's Health Care Reforms Do Not Include A Tax Increase by Mike Genest.

The clearest statement on the tax issue is articulated by Mr. David Henderson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution in his article Terminator Care published in the Wall Street Journal…

“It [the Governor’s plan] would require employers to provide health insurance; give them the option of paying a tax instead of providing health insurance…”

He [Mr. Schwarzenegger] would require employers with 10 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a 4% tax on all wages covered by Social Security… Gov. Schwarzenegger would throw in a 2% tax on doctors and a 4% tax on hospitals to help fund Medi-Cal, California's name for Medicaid.

I just can’t wait for Mr. Genest’s next column about the personal income ~~tax~~ fee.

Steven Maviglio's Rants Are Laughable

2007-01-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Or… Bipartisan means “Democrat Agenda”

It is really kind of funny that every time Governor Schwarzenegger proposes anything that does not emanate from the agenda of the radical left, Democrat flak Steven Maviglio accuses the Governor of trying to play to the “right wing.”

I refer you to two of his recent rants on the Democrats blog.

The first rant, railing against the idea of making those who receive taxpayer funds through government transfer programs (i.e. welfare) actually play by the rules, makes perfect sense to me; when Democrats promote socialism they mean it… and there darn well better be no rules that might make it difficult. Ok, I’m being a little silly here but two things are true: first, the Governor said he would remove people from the program if they are not following the rules of the program (e.g. participating in job training programs); and second, the Democrats always oppose anything that might result in reducing the welfare state and in doing so they accuse Republicans of trying to starve children or the elderly. So, the first rant made sense – after all, it is from the standard Democrat playbook (you remember, when all else fails accuse them of being “mean spirited.”)

The second rant is the one I don’t fully understand. Since when did the idea of building dams become a “right wing” concept? I’m fairly certain that there was a time when Democrats believed in building infrastructure – even dams. For example; Shasta Dam was built between 1938 and 1945 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) and Gov. Frank Merriam (R); Friant Dam 1939-42, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), Gov. Culbert Olson (D), Folsom Dam 1948-56, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R), Bradbury 1950-53, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R); and the New Melones Dam built 1966-79, President Lyndon Johnson (D), Gov. Pat Brown (D) and Gov. Ronald Reagan (R). It all seems pretty bipartisan to me.

But in 2007 building dams is evidently a “right wing” agenda item. Why, one might wonder, is building dams no longer a bipartisan agenda? The answer is actually simple; because the radical environmentalists are a major special interest in control of the leftwing Democrat party. Why do radial environmentalists hate dams? Well, that is a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say – radical environmentalists hate dams, legislative Democrats hate dams.

Make no mistake, when Steven Maviglio talks about bipartisanship he does not mean an agenda that draws support from both parties; he means an agenda that is put forth by leftwing Democrats and embraced by Governor Schwarzenegger. Mr. Maviglio’s rants about Governor Schwarzenegger “veering” right (in the midst of the Governor’s proposal to raise taxes and socialize healthcare) is a bit laughable.

Indulge a little digression and “funning” for a moment…

Perhaps Republicans should accuse Democrats of being “mean spirited” for opposing the construction of dams for several reasons: (1) Democrats are just being mean to retirees who like to fish – fewer dams means fewer reservoirs; (2) Democrats are damaging the environment – all those folks in the city who like water recreation (e.g. water skiing) have to drive excessive miles to reach the current reservoirs – more fossil fuels burned hurts the environment; (3) by preventing the expansion of environmentally friendly hydroelectric power Democrats are driving up the cost of electricity thereby hurting the neediest in California – pretty soon children of single mothers will be homeless and shoeless; and, (4) ultimately, by denying the development of additional water storage, Democrats are trying to dehydrate older people and young children which is a serious health risk – pretty soon dehydrated people will start dropping like flies in Walmart stores all over California.

O.K., I admit, this list is a little over the edge, but I’m just trying to keep the discourse on public policy in the same spirit as promoted by the leftwing Democrats.

The Politics of the Bizarre

2007-01-05T09:32:00.000-08:00

Vice Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee Jim Battin posted on Flash Report today making the case for Senate Republicans to stop the appointment Joe Nunez, CTA lobbyist and Arnold Schwarzenegger antagonist, to the State Board of Education. Senator Battin’s post can be read here.

Making the case for Senator Battin is the California Democrat Party who posted the following on their own website:

Arnold's Own Appointee Presses Charges: The Sacramento Bee reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently reappointed Joe Nuñez to the State Board of Education. One day later, Nuñez courageously announced that he is "filing a five-page complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against Schwarzenegger and the governor's old campaign vehicle, the California Recovery Team." The complain demands that "the FPPC investigate and file a civil suit against Schwarzenegger and the California Recovery Team over what the alliance charged were 'blatant violations' of the Political Reform Act" - violations outlined in the 3rd District Court of Appeal's rulings. Nuñez urged the FPPC "to depose Gov. Schwarzenegger and his political consultants" to find out if there was "an overall plan by his campaign to hide from the press and the public the true nature of his committee's expenditures."

The appointment (actually, reappointment) of Joe Nunez to the State Board of Education by Governor Schwarzenegger caused Dan Weintraub to comment:

This is the equivalent of George Bush appointing Michael Moore as his ambassador to Iraq. Either Schwarzenegger has figured out a very creative way to shore up his relationship with the CTA or he has very strange judgment in appointments. And given the Nunez quote in today's press release, it doesn't look as if the governor's guy is building many bridges. Bizarre.

Chalk this up as just one more example of a rudderless and drifting vessel – in this case it appears to be one completely bereft of any political common sense.

RIP President Gerald Ford

2006-12-26T21:42:00.000-08:00

"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

2006-12-22T20:46:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-12-20T11:33:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-20T10:59:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-12-19T15:03:00.000-08:00

... 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

2006-12-19T14:12:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-18T14:59:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-16T13:36:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-12-15T08:58:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-14T11:42:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-13T14:39:00.000-08:00

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”

2006-12-11T12:03:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-11T11:26:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-12-06T13:49:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-05T13:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-03T20:45:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-01T11:34:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-12-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

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.

In LAUSD… As Much As Things Change, They Stay the Same

2006-11-30T10:08:00.000-08:00

I’m a fan of The Who, and have always felt the need to turn up the volume for Won’t Get Fooled Again. When I read the Howard Blume article, L.A. mayor, new schools chief on the same page in the Times today I felt the urge to pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday… Well, you get the idea.

Howard Blume reports in the article that recently hired LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a press conference after the first of their regularly scheduled weekly meetings – a good idea (the meetings, not the press conference) that could have been accomplished without the Mayor’s LAUSD “takeover” bill, (bearing the lofty title:) The Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006. Reportedly, the Superintendent and the Mayor are simpatico on their education agenda which includes (long pause for affect) more taxpayer funds for LAUSD, oh yeah… and more accountability for the district (which in California means additional taxpayer funds and the horrible experience of being labeled a “high priority” school).

Will there be any real accountability? According to Howard Blume, Superintendent Brewer tipped his hand on this front by continuing to “soft-pedal earlier remarks about his willingness to fire bad teachers.” In fact, according to the Times reporter the Superintendent, “talked of "embracing" teachers by giving them necessary training, due process and even rewards and community sponsored incentives, such as coupons and free classroom supplies. When pressed several times on how long ineffective teachers would be given to improve, he declined to say.”

I’m not one for firing people for the sake of firing, but there needs to be less coddling and more cajoling if LAUSD is going to change its culture from one of continued failure to one of success. At some point the district will need to use student test data to determine where academic success is occurring and where it isn’t. Where academic failure is systemic, teachers either need to learn how to teach or find a career for which they are better suited. The same level of professional and personal accountability needs to be applied to principals and other administrators. If things do not change, there needs to be accountability for the entire district. Perhaps better options should be explored like breaking LAUSD into smaller more manageable (and more accountable) districts; or better yet, providing parents and students the option to attend better schools by allowing them the choice to escape from the failing government schools.

The modicum of improvement LAUSD has enjoyed in recent years has been most prominently influenced by the adoption of statewide academic standards and standards-aligned testing. Superintendent Romer did a yeoman’s job of implementing policies to improve the delivery of standards-based curriculum, and I suppose Admiral Brewer will do at least as good a job (after all, he is an Admiral). But, anyone who was hoping for a revolution led by Mayor Villaraigosa through the Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006 – well... just crank up The Who, that rockin’ band who emphatically belted out the lyrics, “I'll tip my hat to the new constitution. Take a bow for the new revolution. Smile and grin at the change all around. Pick up my guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then I'll get on my knees and pray. We don't get fooled again.”

Honoring a Hero and a Friend

2006-11-28T20:54:00.000-08:00

Pacific Research Institute's Lance Izumi suggests How Arnold can honor Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman wrote eloquently in favor of school choice, and Lance Izumi makes a case for the Governor to honor his self-proclaimed mentor by offering California's students a choice. I could not have said it better.

Unfortunately, I am confident that the Governor will not follow Mr. Izumi's sound advice; it would not comport with Mr. Schwarzenegger's 2006 brand of bipartisanship (i.e. all the Democrats and him). Why wouldn't Democrats favor school choice for students trapped in the state's lowest performing schools? Because unions - specifically the teachers union (the CTA) - abhor school choice. The California Teachers Assocation instead favors propping up the government school monopoly rather than helping students learn. I sincerely hope Governor Schwarzenegger proves my assumption wrong, it would be a wonderful surprise and an incredible opportunity for students stuck in failing government schools.

Declining Enrollment – Government Schools Need to Adjust Accordingly

2006-11-26T21:14:00.000-08:00

Government School Monopolies – Insulated from the Marketplace
Today, the Sacramento Bee carried a story by Peter Hecht about declining enrollment in California schools. The way public schools deal with declining enrollment demonstrates just how insulated the government school monopolies are from the reality of the marketplace. Most businesses, when faced with declining customers, adjust and do so quickly or face the reality of going out of business. Government schools, on the other hand, are given a year of “cushion” and then seek other ways to avoid dealing with market realities.

For the uninitiated, to fully understand the year of “cushion;” a quick “primer” in funding might be useful. School districts receive funding based upon average daily attendance (ADA). Their revenue limit (basic funding) is based upon the number of students who actually show up for school each year (some may remember the days before ADA when schools were funded based upon enrollment rather than attendance and they were not nearly so concerned about whether your child actually showed up for school each day). School districts that experience declining enrollment are provided a one year “cushion” by allowing them to choose to accept their revenue limit calculated on the current year ADA or the previous year ADA; this allows the school district one full year to make needed programmatic changes to adjust serving fewer customers.

The declining enrollment “cushion” was originally designed to accommodate school districts that suffered sudden and unanticipated enrollment losses caused, for example, by the closing of a military base in the area served by the school district. When declining enrollment is caused by changing demographics in a community it is supposed to be recognized by the district, anticipated and addressed in long-term planning. Some school districts have done this well, others (like San Juan Unified School District) have instead operated with their proverbial head in a hole. When a business makes such a dramatic error in planning it either makes drastic changes or it goes out of business. When government school monopolies make such errors they declare a “crisis” and appeal to lawmakers for a bailout.

An Opportunity Missed - Or... An Opportunity Enhanced?
This year the Legislature passed SB 1133 (Torlakson) which was the “settlement” of the lawsuit filed by the California Teachers Association (CTA) against Governor Schwarzenegger to “recover” $2.9 billion the CTA argued was owed to schools (based upon an agreement between the CTA and the Governor in 2004). SB 1133 was written by the CTA and spends the entire $2.9 billion on an experiment called the “Quality Education Investment Act of 2006” – in short, the $2.9 billion (ostensibly "taken" from all schools) will be spent over seven years in approximately 600 schools to reduce class sizes and provide professional development. To accommodate the class size reduction approximately 2,500 teachers must be hired – when the one-time funding runs out in seven years there will once again be a “crisis” that requires more money.

It would have been wiser and more equitable to use the $2.9 billion in “settlement” funds to address issues like declining enrollment in all schools rather than establish ongoing, expensive programs for 600 (out of nearly 10,000 schools) with one-time funds. Ironically, SB 1133 creates a need to hire more teachers at a time when overall enrollment is declining – could the government schools have enjoyed a less market-driven reality?

[An aside, SB 1133 represents the “dream child” of the CTA – establishing new jobs through class size reduction which means more dues payers which allows more funding for the CTA to play in political campaigns. The ability of the CTA to be an influential financier of political campaigns ensures that more money will be doled out to mitigate the ravages of declining enrollment and other marketplace inconveniences. While this does not help taxpayers, it is a boon to government school monopolies.]

Questions to Ask
When your school district declares it is a “district in crisis” because it is losing funding based upon declining enrollment ask a couple of questions. First, what caused the declining enrollment? Was it a sudden change or was it due to changing demographics? If the latter is the case, what has the school district done in anticipation of the declining enrollment? How many new schools were built in the district despite projections of declining enrollment? Is the school district acting rationally to anticipate future enrollment growth (for example, leasing out closed facilities rather than selling them)? Ultimately, if the marketplace demands reduced operations; why should the school district be insulated from making needed adjustments?

The Story by Peter Hecht can be read here.

Good Advice from Mr. Speaker

2006-11-19T23:01:00.000-08:00

An Open Memorandum to House Republicans
November 16 2006
Newt Gingrich

As we think about the 2006 election and where House Republicans go from here, I want to suggest a few principles and actions that might be helpful.

When I was first elected in 1978, House Republicans had been in the minority for 24 years. Despite our best efforts to win enough seats to gain the majority, it took us 16 more years. If we do not want to return to a possible 40 years in the minority, it is essential that we spend time now thinking about the lessons of 2006 and what has to be done. If we do this, we can accept 2006 as a corrective but necessary interruption in our pursuit of a governing majoritarian party.

In 1946 and 1952, the Democrats found themselves in the minority. On both occasions it only lasted two years. They found the methods to recover, even though in the second case they were operating under a very popular Republican President Eisenhower.

When the Republicans lost their brief majority status in 1954, they could not recover it two years later, despite the fact that Eisenhower was winning a massive re-election. Similarly, they could not regain the majority even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984.

There are some key questions and key principles to keep in mind as we work through the process of earning back the majority.

1. Republicans lost the 2006 election. Do not hide from this. Do not shrug it off. Our team lost. Why did we lose? What do we have to do differently?

2. Are House Republicans electing a leadership team to be an effective minority or a leadership team to regain the majority? These are very different roles and require very different considerations, very different strategies and very different leaders.

3. To regain majority status, we have to focus on the country first and on Washington and the Congress second. If we are responsive to the country, they will support us and return us to power. If we are focused on action in Washington (whether White House action, legislative action or lobbyist and PAC action), we are probably entering a long period in minority status.

4. Are House Republicans electing leaders to represent House Republican values and strategies to the White House or leaders to represent the White House to House Republicans? Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons. If we want to regain majority status, we have to focus on the building of a grassroots coalition which supports real change in Washington.

5. From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.

6. House Republicans should establish new principles for appointing people to the Appropriations Committee. Nothing infuriated the Republican base more than the continued process of earmarks, set asides and incumbent-protection pork. There is no reason for the House Republican conference to reappoint a single appropriator unless they agree to be part of the Republican team. First establish the principles of representing Republican values on appropriations and then ask each appropriator to commit themselves to living by those principles or accept appointment to another committee. There is a legitimate role for set asides in the legislative-executive branch process, but there is no reason to give the executive branch a blank check. There has to be some limits, and those limits should be set by the Conference and not by the committee members.

7. All of this will take time. As rapidly as possible there should be a three-day member-only retreat to discuss issues like this and to set strategies for the next two years. These kinds of decisions should be a key part of thinking through who should lead House Republicans for the next Congress and how they should lead.

One Last Note

Do not underestimate Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and her team. She and Rahm Emmanuel finally put together a disciplined recruiting system that allowed a lot of Democrats to run as conservatives, even while they were planning to elect the most liberal Speaker in history. Pelosi is a tough, smart, disciplined professional. She is not going to be easy to beat, and she and her team are going to work hard to keep you in the minority for a decade or more.

This is going to be hard work and will require a lot of dedication and a lot of thought.

With best wishes for a return to majority status as quickly as possible.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Getting it right… and wrong

2006-11-18T12:05:00.000-08:00

The Saturday San Diego Union Tribune editorial (below) indicating that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was betrayed by the UTLA, the local California Teachers Association affiliate, gets it both right and wrong all at once.

Getting it Right
The Tribune editorial writers are correct in recognizing that the teachers union is just that - a union. Notwithstanding all of the prognostication and consternation about what is “right for the kids” and notwithstanding the grandmotherly radio ads by union boss Barbara Kerr at the beginning of the school year advocating wholesome approaches to preparing children for school – the union is just that a union – a labor union. What is the union all about? Working conditions. How does the union define better working conditions? More pay and less work. There is nothing shocking about this, it’s all about promoting self interest.

A digression
I was reminded of this mentality recently when a colleague who retired several years ago from a long career in public education told me she would no longer encourage young people to enter a career in teaching. She said that she could no longer recommend the career because it is, “no longer fun.” Hmmm, no longer fun? What changed during her tenure? That’s right, the state tired of graduating functional illiterates from high school and the Legislature (in a rare moment of clarity) passed laws to require the adoption of standards, standards aligned testing and even a high school exit exam. Finally, a system of education that relies upon research-based curriculum that is based upon high standards and measures outcomes through aligned testing; a system that produces educated children; a system that returns to taxpayers what they expect when they make their investment. That is precisely the system she declares is “no fun.” Well, I am sorry if educating children is not fun for her… perhaps a different career would have been a better choice in the first place.

Getting it Wrong
Where the Tribune editorialists error is in their assessment of whether the Mayor was duped. Mayor Villaraigosa was a union organizer, the Speaker of the Assembly (the author of the Mayor’s LAUSD bill) worked for UTLA – they knew who and what they were dealing with. It is foolish to think they were duped; they ultimately got exactly what the Mayor wanted: control of over $19 billion in construction contracts and over $9 billion in annual funds / service contracts. The LAUSD legislation affecting district operations grants the Mayor “veto” power over the hiring of the district superintendent; the legislation grants the superintendent the power to negotiate and execute all contracts without any oversight by the elected Board of Education. The Chair of the Assembly Education Committee understood the folly in such an arrangement and during the committee hearing on the bill stated that she hoped the next superintendent was a person of incredible integrity (perhaps that is why she was a candidate for the job).

The Mayor made concessions to the union (concessions he would have voted for as a member of the Assembly). One of those “concessions” the union demanded is that contracts be negotiated with the Board of Education not the Council of Mayors. This allows the Mayor to blame breakdowns in contract negotiations on the Board of Education and appear to be “above it all.” Meanwhile, the ability to influence contracts for construction and services remains in the power of the Mayor’s superintendent. In the end, the union is stronger and the Mayor gets to dole out contracts.

Is it possible that the Mayor was not duped at all, but instead got exactly what he wanted?

Los Angeles lesson
Teachers union betrays ally Villaraigosa

UNION-TRIBUNE
November 18, 2006

California is usually seen as a national trendsetter. But the California Teachers Association's ability to persuade voters each election that it and its favored candidates are devoted to kids couldn't be more retro.

Elsewhere, it long since has been accepted that teachers unions are like other unions: driven by self-interest. This was reflected in a joke for New Yorkers that Woody Allen included in his post-apocalypse 1973 comedy “Sleeper”: The war that destroyed civilization began when “a man by the name of Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead.” Shanker was a famously contentious New York teachers union leader.

But what's going on in the Los Angeles Unified School District might finally wake up Californians. With the seeming support of United Teachers Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa persuaded the Legislature this summer to give him considerable authority in running the district. There was a brief sense of excitement – perhaps a new model for reform had emerged, one in which a teachers union would be a willing partner.

No more. It now appears the UTLA was engaged in a ruse to increase its leverage in contract negotiations and will sandbag Villaraigosa's agenda unless teachers are given a 9 percent, one-year raise. Meanwhile, the union is fielding school board candidates dedicated to thwarting any reform that might cost one bad teacher his or her job.

In other words, Villaraigosa – a former union organizer – was betrayed. And so, indirectly, were the millions of Californians who defend teachers unions as positive forces. As L.A. Unified's saga confirms, they are anything but.

Veterans: Thank you!

2006-11-11T10:49:00.000-08:00

This is a "re-post" of a previous post on OAF Blog, I thought it appropriate on Veterans Day. I especially want to extend a thank you to my father and my brother - both combat veterans who have served our nation with honor. I hold both men in the highest esteem; and wish to express my love and respect. Thank you!

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

- Senator Zell Miller

Take a moment and thank a soldier today.

The Myth of "Cetrism" Debunked

2006-11-11T09:55:00.000-08:00

Steve Wiegand debunks the myth of "cetrism" in the Sacramento Bee today, and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Wiegand. Centrism is a misunderstood idea - people believe that centrism is the solution to complex problems - it is not. The "fever swamps" of the political left and the political right tend to be the incubators of ideas - solutions to complex problems. Given the profuound difference in philosophical approaches, the ideas often clash. The clash of ideas is a good thing, it provokes (what should be) a healthy debate; and, as Mr. Wiegand recognizes, when people negotiate in good faith problems get solved. What has been lacking is a civility in the debate - a commitment to integrity in the negotiation. What needs to be changed is not the philosophical beliefs of our representatives; it is the way they behave. We need more statesmen and fewer partisan self-promoters.

The following contains excerpts from Mr. Wiegand's article; I highly recommend reading the entire article here.

Centrism is highly overrated
By Steve Wiegand - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 11, 2006

There have been a lot of warm and fuzzy self-congratulations since Tuesday's election about how California voters and candidates -- particularly Arnold Schwarzenegger -- have met in the middle of the political spectrum.

…But before we all join hands and sing 10 or 12 verses of "Kumbaya," let's peer a little harder at reality.

Schwarzenegger won big, and he's a Reep. Whoop-de-do. Six of the last 10 California governors have been Republican. In fact, since 1899, we've had exactly four -- count 'em, four -- Democratic governors.

Plus, let's face it, Skippy the Wonder Possum could have whupped Phil Angelides.

It's true that through "bipartisan cooperation," the Legislature and governor enacted bills that raise the minimum wage, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make some prescription drugs cheaper for Californians without medical insurance.

That is if you define "bipartisan cooperation" as the governor cutting deals with Democratic lawmakers. And if you ignore the fact that of the 138 Republican legislative votes that could have been cast for those three bills, exactly six were.

Instead of a true centrist "bipartisan" core, what we had was a governor willing to bend to get re-elected, and a majority of Democrats willing to help him to further their own agendas. But the guv becomes a lame duck about five seconds into his inaugural address. And he's bound to be out stumping for the GOP presidential hopeful in 2008.

...The let's-all-be-friends-in-the-middle sentiment notwithstanding, there's nothing wrong with conflicting political ideologies in state politics. In fact, the idea of approaching problems from different perspectives can increase the number and quality of the solutions for them, as long as the parties are willing to negotiate in good faith.

…Besides, centrism is overrated. As the Texas philosopher Jim Hightower once observed, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

I'll take civility and independent thinking over that.

Proof Positive

2006-11-09T21:20:00.000-08:00

Carla Marinucci's Spin Cycle: Schwarzenegger praises "new blood" in Congress
posted November 9, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, emerging from a meeting with Mexican president Vicente Fox, made his first comments about the U.S. midterm elections this week, saying that "this is good that we have new blood coming to Washington."

The governor was asked by Mexican reporters about his reaction to the election in which Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He said that it was a good thing that "we have new people and new ideas coming to Washington."

"Washington was stuck ... they could not move forward," he said. "Not much was accomplished ... it was terrible." But with the outcome of the election "the people has spoken all over the United States, and I thought they sent a very clear message," he said.
"They want bipartisanship ... what we've done in California."

Schwarzenegger said that he was "very happy" that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the next Speaker of the House, has been "talking about working together with both parties."

"That's where the future is," he said. The governor's comments set off a flurry, as aides sought to clarify that Schwarzenegger was not specifically praising a Democratic takeover of Congress, but was commenting on the overall call for change he said voters wanted.

Schwarzenegger himself even called a reporter after the event, stressing his comments were not political in nature. The governor's office said he has put in a call to Pelosi, but they have not yet spoken.

OAF: Yeah, the Governor didn't really mean it in a "political way"and he didn't really mean that he's happy about the Democrat takeover of Congress... and John Kerry really meant to tell a joke about the President.

Where's the party?
By Anthony York
posted 11/9/06 - Capitol Weekly

[California GOP State Chairman] Sundheim said that in this Democratic year, it just didn't make sense for Schwarzenegger to embrace other Republicans. "What we saw and felt is that this is not the year you get a bunch of Republicans holding hands on the stage saying, vote for us, we're Republicans, we're a team. Part of Gov. Schwarzenegger's appeal is that he's not part of that team."

As previously stated, proof positive!

Wayward Republicans Need to Return to Core Principles

2006-11-08T22:11:00.000-08:00

Philip Klein published a must read for those who are trying to make sense of yesterday's election. Klein identifies what went wrong with Republicans, and why (after losing their way)they lost the House. I argued last year that Democrats could not win becuase they did not have a positive agenda for America - I was wrong on one account and right on another. Democrats never developed much of an agenda, but they didn't need to. Republicans, the party in power, chose to abandon any sense of an agenda at all! Republicans utter lack of any major accomplishment and their lack of articluating a positive agenda left the door wide open - Democrats walked through that door. Democrats successfully positioned themselves as being more fiscally responsible (an easy charge to make given the spending habits of the Republican Congress) and more ethcial (again, with four Republicans resigning due to scandal on the eve of the mid-term elections, an easy case to make). I recommend reading the Klein article, which sheds some light and makes much sense.

Political Hay
Renewing the Contract
By Philip Klein
Published 11/8/2006 12:09:29 AM

... In assessing last night's results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money" to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to "end its cycle of scandal and disgrace" and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.

Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi -- a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her. Republican strategists who projected optimism over the past few months cited as reasons for their confidence: fundraising, incumbency advantage, gerrymandering and new innovations such as "microtargeting." But as this election made perfectly clear, none of this can bail out a party that is bereft of ideas. ... (Read the full article here.)

Addendum: The best reform for Congress would be to limit the size and scope of the federal government! I commented on this in February of 2006, you can read the post here.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is no party leader

2006-11-03T15:14:00.000-08:00

When Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized Tom McClintock on Thursday it wasn’t the policy disagreement that bothered this conservative (although the Governor is wrong on a policy basis); it was the timing of his proclamation.

OAKLAND — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appreciates the Republican lieutenant governor nominee's opinion that the infrastructure bonds on next week's ballot are a mistake but believes he's "totally wrong."

"If you went with his way of thinking, you would never rebuild California," the governor said Thursday of state Sen. Tom McClintock as he visited the Port of Oakland to stump for the $37 billion bond package." (Read the full story here.)

The Governor does little without thorough review and scripting through his handlers, it is not likely that he took a shot at Tom McClintock on the eve of the election without realizing that it would hurt Senator McClintock’s chances of besting his liberal Democrat opponent on Tuesday. Such calculated attacks on GOP candidates are a clear indicator that this Governor is all about “this Governor;” he's not a team player, and certainly he's not a GOP leader.

A party leader would not stifle the electoral hopes of a leading GOP candidate who will be in position to carry the GOP standard as a gubernatorial candidate in 2010.

The Sounds of Silence

That other deafening sound you hear out on the campaign trail is the utter lack of any support for GOP Attorney General candidate Chuck Poochigian by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The importance of the office of the Attorney General is without question. This year in particular, there is no other race for statewide office more important. The election for AG garners the title of “most important” for two reasons. First, the election of Jerry Brown to this office is going to be disastrous for the California business climate – Chuck Poochigian is far better suited for this post. Second, the election of Chuck Poochigian provides Republicans and California a thoughtful and responsible conservative for consideration as Governor in 2010. Despite the need to build the GOP’s bench, Governor Schwarzenegger has done nothing to visibly help Senator Poochigian in his campaign.

What about Coat-Tails?

Perhaps one could argue that Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaign for re-election has provided coat-tails, and that despite his lack of Party-building those coat-tails qualify him to be California’s GOP leader. Not so; if beating one of the mighty Lilliputians by a wide margin somehow translates into GOP victories in California on the down ticket races it will be a nice byproduct of the Schwarzenegger victory, but it will not be the result of anything Governor Schwarzenegger has done to assist those candidates. Party leadership requires that the leader engages affirmatively not just to promote his own self interest, but to also develop and build the bench for the future.

The Governor’s attack on Tom McClintock and his silence on Chuck Poochigian are clear evidence that he is not a leader; he is merely a self-promoter.

Econ 101 - Should We Trade At All?

2006-10-25T13:33:00.000-07:00

Once again, by pointing out the absurd, Professor Walter Williams illustrates a fundamental principle of economics: voluntary exchange as a tool to maximize scarce resources. Dr. Williams also demonstrates how voluntary exchange (trade) can be altered irrationally by a motivated and focused interest group. It is unfortunate that politicians will abandon core principles (e.g. the free market) and make irrational decisions to appease narrowly focused groups – be they farmers, textile companies or teachers unions. Inevitably the intervention and protection by government statute or regulation provides a benefit only to those seeking protection at the expense of everyone else. This is one very good argument for the need to limit the size and scope of government!

Should we trade at all
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

There are only a handful of products that Americans import that cannot be produced at home and therefore create jobs for Americans. Let's look at a few of them.

We import cocoa from Ghana and coffee from African and Latin American countries. We import saffron from Spain and India and cinnamon from Sri Lanka. In fact, India produces 86 percent of the world tonnage of spices. There's absolutely no reason these products cannot be produced by Americans, and we could be cocoa, coffee and spices independent.

You say, "Williams, that's crazy! We don't have the climate and soil conditions to produce those products. Many spices, for example, require a moist tropical environment." No problem. We have the technology whereby we can simulate both the soil and weather conditions. We could build greenhouses in which to grow cinnamon trees and get our scientists to create the same soil conditions that exist in Sri Lanka. Greenhouses could also be built to simulate the climate conditions in Africa and Latin America to grow cocoa and coffee. In the case of cocoa, the greenhouses would have to be Superdome size to accommodate trees as high as 50 feet.

You say, "Williams, that's still crazy! Imagine the high costs and the higher product prices of your crazy scheme." I say, "Aha, you're getting the picture."

There are several nearly self-evident factors about our being cocoa, coffee and spices independent. Without a doubt, there would be job creation in our cocoa, coffee and spices industries, but consumers would pay a much higher price than they currently do. Therefore, nearly 300 million American consumers would be worse off, having to pay those higher prices or doing without, but those with the new jobs would be better off.

So let's be honest with ourselves. Why do we choose to import cocoa, coffee and spices rather than produce them ourselves? The answer is that it is cheaper to do so. That means we enjoy a higher standard of living than if we tried to produce them ourselves. If we can enjoy, say, coffee, at a cheaper price than producing it ourselves, we have more money left over to buy other goods. That principle not only applies to cocoa, coffee and spices. It's a general principle: If a good can be purchased more cheaply abroad, we enjoy a higher standard of living by trading than we would by producing it ourselves.

No one denies that international trade has unpleasant consequences for some workers. They have to find other jobs that might not pay as much, but should we protect those jobs through trade restrictions? The Washington-based Institute for International Economics has assembled data that might help with the answer. Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar saved 2,261 jobs during the 1990s. As a result of those restrictions, the average household pays $21 more per year for sugar. The total cost, nationally, sums to $826,000 for each job saved. Trade restrictions on luggage saved 226 jobs and cost consumers $1.2 million in higher prices for each job saved. Restrictions on apparel and textiles saved 168,786 jobs at a cost of nearly $200,000 for each job saved.

You might wonder how it is possible for, say, the sugar industry to rip off consumers. After all, consumers are far more numerous than sugar workers and sugar bosses. It's easy. A lot is at stake for those in the sugar industry, workers and bosses. They dedicate huge resources to pressure Congress into enacting trade restrictions. But how many of us consumers will devote the same resources to unseat a congressman who voted for sugar restrictions that forced us to pay $21 more for the sugar our family uses? It's the problem of visible beneficiaries of trade restrictions, sugar workers and bosses, gaining at the expense of invisible victims -- sugar consumers. We might think of it as congressional price-gouging.

Dr. Williams articles are published at Townhall.com; a list of his articles can be found here.

Lyn Nofziger, R.I.P.

2006-03-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

On March 27th America lost a great man. If I were capable, I would eulogize Lyn Nofziger, but I don't feel close to adequate. Peter Robinson did a fine job on National Review's webpage. The following is a snippet into the world of a man whom I have always held in the highest of regard...

From Lyn Nofziger's own webpage:

I'm Lyn Nofziger and this is my website.

If you're looking for a female exhibitionist with a digital camera you've come to the wrong place.

On the other hand, if you want some conservative opinion laced with exasperation, an occasional limerick or other piece of doggerel, or are interested in the books I have written you're in the right place. All you have to do is click on "Musings."The odds are you've never heard of me, which is all right because I've probably never heard of you either, so let me tell you a little bit about myself.

R.I.P, Lyn Nofziger.

Socialized Preschool Losing Support

2006-02-28T21:52:00.000-08:00

Perata has second thoughts on preschool initiative
By Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee 2/28/06

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, one of the state's leading Democrats, said Tuesday he is reconsidering his support for a June universal preschool ballot proposal in another blow to Rob Reiner's initiative campaign.

The full story here.

I had previously asked if Democrats would have the courage to openly oppose Rob Reiner's socialized preschool initiative (now Prop. 82). I am glad to see that Senate Pro Tem Don Perata is moving in that direction. I can’t say that Senator Perata’s reasoning is sound; he thinks that a lack of means testing is the problem. Translated… he thinks that it is unfair to take from the “rich” and give to the middle class; after all, real socialism calls for more extreme redistribution of wealth. Perhaps concerns raised by many in the education community that dumping billions into preschool is not good for a struggling K-12 system is the real reason driving some common sense into elected Democrats, and now they are scrambling for reasons to run away from Prop. 82.

Hiatus...

2006-02-21T09:28:00.000-08:00

Hiatus - an interruption in the intensity or amount of something.

Please forgive the hiatus, it will continue for the unforeseeable future or until I can't handle life without this outlet to vent. Seriously though, with some changes afoot and an extremely busy time, I will be out for a short while.

Please, if you are one of the two or three people who actually visit here regularly, check in and see when the hiatus is over. If you would like me to email you when I do start adding content, please send me an email so I know.

Until then, my friends...

Keep fighting for freedom and having fun!

Kennedy and Ethics

2006-02-14T10:55:00.000-08:00

For Republican Party activists the appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger of leftwing political activist Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff was a philosophical problem. She has worked her entire life to defeat and destroy candidates and public policies that we have embraced and promoted.

With the volume of noise focused on philosophy and party loyalty; the concern about Kennedy’s ethics was nearly drowned out. Questions about Kennedy’s ethics were raised here and in other sources, but mostly complaints have been focused on her role as a political operative.

It has been less than three months since Susan Kennedy took the reins of leadership in the Governor’s office and questions about her ethics are now drowning out the issue of her radical leftist philosophy.

The following two stories provide insight into why Susan Kennedy was wrong for the chief of staff job, regardless of whether she is serving Arnold Schwarzenegger or her old boss Phil Angelides.

Water Firm Awash in Political Influence
Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

(Keith) Brackpool is the chairman and chief executive of Cadiz Inc. For years, Cadiz tried to entice the Metropolitan Water District into a $150-million scheme to store surplus water from the Colorado in the Mojave Desert. The skeptical MWD, which serves most of Southern California, finally nixed the project in 2002.

But Brackpool has never gone away, possibly because he hopes to exploit his political connections to revive the plan. Over the years, he has hobnobbed with Democratic politicians ranging from former Gov. Gray Davis to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The latest moth caught circling his flame is Susan Kennedy, Gov. Schwarzenegger's chief of staff. As my colleague Robert Salladay reported last week, Kennedy, a Democrat, received $120,000 from Cadiz as a "consultant" in 2005 while serving on the state Public Utilities Commission. The PUC doesn't directly regulate Cadiz, but it has a considerable voice in water policy, a topic that also falls within Kennedy's current portfolio.

Read the full story here.

Kennedy May Be More of a Liability Than Help to Gov.
George Skelton, Los Angeles Times

This probably was not what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had in mind when he signed up Democrat Susan Kennedy to be his chief of staff.

…The last thing Schwarzenegger needed was for his and her ethics to be questioned. And that's what is happening.

To recap: Since her appointment, it has been reported and acknowledged that Schwarzenegger is supplementing Kennedy's $131,000-per-year public salary with $7,500 a month in political money. That's supposed to pay for her political advice (which she should be offering as chief of staff anyway) and for explaining the governor's agenda to donor groups (that she shouldn't be going near).

Turns out, in December, while still a California Public Utilities commissioner — a $114,000 job — Kennedy was slipped $25,000 from Schwarzenegger's campaign account for political advice. That came three weeks after AT&T donated $25,000 to Schwarzenegger. The donation was made four days before Kennedy voted to approve AT&T's merger with SBC. Nobody is alleging a quid pro quo, but it's a putrid perception.

Read the full story here.

How 'bout some Dom Perignon with that pork?

2006-02-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

The following are two stories to highlight a commonly-known reality; people are willing to spend big when somebody else is paying the check. When that occurs on the company credit card, it is an issue between the executive, the company comptroller and the employee. When it happens with your tax dollars; hmmm, well, everyone screams about it - and nothing gets done!

There are hundreds of stories like the two below; they can be found regularly in newspapers across the state. Stories highlighting the unjustifiable spending of taxpayer dollars by public officials who love living large; meanwhile Democrats are demanding more of your money through tax increases to fund even more largesse. Huh? How about managing the money already in the bank with some integrity before confiscating more or ours!

Never forget; when the government spends money somebody else is always paying the check.

Florez questions First 5 spending
By SHELLIE BRANCO, Bakersfield Californian

Can one man eat $400 worth of food in three and a half days?

How about when his lunches and breakfasts are already provided?

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is once again grilling First 5 Kern on its spending habits. The commission, which uses state tobacco-tax money for programs to help children through age 5, approved on Feb. 1 a plan to bring in a consultant for a county training session on curbing prenatal alcohol and drug use.

...The Kern commission has been criticized in the past for spending millions of dollars on consultants and out-of-town travel and meals, and added on "cost-of-living" salary boosts.

First 5 Kern plans to fly, lodge and feed a Chicago consultant and his assistant at a price tag of over $26,000 for a few days.

Read the full story here.

Schools chief's credit conflict
Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive
by Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle

Outgoing San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman racked up $45,625 in credit card charges in 2005 -- mostly in meals, airplane tickets and hotels -- which have been reimbursed by the San Francisco Unified School District at taxpayer expense.

Ackerman, a member of many national education organizations, took 32 work-related trips around the country last year, often staying in luxury hotels and eating at high-priced restaurants.

While in San Francisco, she paid for scores of working lunches and dinners -- frequently at such well-known restaurants as Jardiniere, Hayes Street Grill, Palomino and Morton's.

...Ackerman was blunt on Wednesday: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. People can nitpick if they want to, but I didn't do anything I think was wrong."

Read the full story here.

Oaff: On the Arlene Ackerman story; three quick observations:

1. She spent about $10,000 more on travel and food than I earned in a year as a teacher.
2. Her arrogance, when her spending is called into question, is typical.
3. In the headline, Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive - SOME? That's incredible! How could there not be universal agreement that a school superintendent does not need to eat at Mortons on the school district dime? How about a reasonable agreement that school district money should never be spent in a restaurant where they don't print the prices on the menu? Seem reasonable? Hmmmm?

Batteries Not Included

2006-02-09T10:28:00.000-08:00

Heard about the e-waste recycling deadline? (Didn't think so)
by By Marjie Lundstrom, Sacramento Bee

Beginning today, anyone with a used battery*, fluorescent light tube, old cell phone - the list goes on and on - can no longer toss the thing into the trash, bound for the landfill. (emphasis added)

...From now on, we Californians are responsible for laying to rest our kids' oh-so-last-year iPods, light-up sneakers and singing greeting cards. We're in charge of funeral arrangements for that closet full of old oven cleaner, dead VCRs and iffy AA batteries.

Read the full story here.

*Yes, we’re talking about that AAA in your television remote control. And, under the law fines for violations can be as high as $25,000! Of course, "officials" say they won't be going door-to-door to enforce the law; their focus will be on small businesses. So, I guess that means you can all rest easy that the enviro police won't be shutting down your household, instead they'll be going after your job - what a comfort.

I suspect, once they realize that most people will not store household batteries, etc. until they have enough to justify a trip to the hazardous waste disposal center (located somewhere in their city or county), they will implement a curbside pickup procedure - a bonus to your local labor union!

The following legislators were authors of this law:

Senator Byron Sher (retired)
Senator Gloria Romero
Senator Sheila Kuehl
Senator Liz Figueroa
Assembly Member Hannah-Beth Jackson (retired)
Assembly Member Patty Berg
Assembly Member Judy Chu
Assembly Member Paul Koretz
Assembly Member John Laird
Assembly Member Mark Leno
Assembly Member Lloyd Levine
Assembly Member Sally Lieber
Assembly Member Fran Pavley
Assembly Member Lois Wolk

I have an idea. As you gather your AAA, AA, C, D and 9-volt batteries to take them to the city or county hazardous waste collection center (where you will be charged a fee); deliver them, instead, to the authors of this law. Heck, just to be an honest person, find out what the fee is and send it along (in pennies) so they won’t get stuck paying the tab.

A Super (Bowl) Message

2006-02-07T12:48:00.000-08:00

Among all of the hype about which Super Bowl ad was the best (ususally the funniest), I think one ad was overlooked. It was not funny, but it communicated an important message.

In the commercial (advertising a hybrid Toyota Camry) the conversation starts when the son asks, “Papa, why do we have a hybrid?”

The father replies, “For your future.” He then goes on to explain that the hybrid is “good for the air” and that it saves them money by using both electricity and gasoline.

The boy then says, “Like you with English and Spanish.”

(Smiling) Papa says, “Si.”

His son then asks, “Why did you learn English?”

Papa says, “For your future.”

Given the attitude of so many in the “bilingual” movement which seeks to preserve Spanish as the primary language and advocates for long-term instruction in Spanish thereby depriving many youngsters the opportunity to become proficient in English, I was surprised that Toyota was willing to weigh in on the issue. Their statement, promoting the idea that learning English is in the best interest of one’s future is both a correct and, in my opinion, bold statement. It is bold only because those who oppose the idea of English as a primary language almost always engage in labeling any dissenters as racists and xenophobes. Usually, corporations like Toyota seek to avoid any circumstance that might be deemed offensive.

I encourage you to watch the advertisement yourself.

An Essential Read for Republican Partisans

2006-02-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

I commend to your attention this article, A Party With the Courage of no Convictions, by John Kurzweil who is the editor of the California Political Review.

An excerpt...

"California Republicans have spent most of the past decade trying to bring about a revolutionary reversal of direction in the political culture of one of the world's most powerful and influential political entities with less clear thinking, research, preparation, and attention to detail in execution - and, indeed, with little evidence even of realizing the magnitude of the job they have undertaken - than one typical small businessman would employ in opening a single hamburger stand. This Republican approach might somehow prove adequate if the opposition were similarly trifling, but not when the other side is willing and able to spend and to do whatever it takes to win, as California Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be."

The full article can - and should - be read here.

Cal Races Provides a Great Service

2006-02-07T10:07:00.000-08:00

For those who can't get to the SOS's office, or would rather spend their time doing something else... Cal Races has posted a downloadable spreadsheet of the year end campaign finance totals for candidates from Gov to Assembly. Excellent work MPI!

Reiner Initiative Will Damage Preschools

2006-02-06T16:40:00.000-08:00

Reiner initiative bad for preschoolers
By Alan Bonsteel, OC Register 2/6/06

It's now official: Californians will see a Preschool for All Act initiative on the June ballot sponsored by Hollywood personality Rob Reiner. Unfortunately, while the evidence for the benefit of preschool is strong, even those who favor publicly financed preschool will want to see Reiner's bungled effort defeated.

Just as director Reiner's latest film, "Rumor Has It," was a box-office flop ($42 million domestically) despite the talents of Jennifer Anniston because of an incoherent screenplay, Reiner's initiative is similarly fatally flawed by his incoherent drafting and ignorance of educational policy.

... Even voters who passionately support publicly funded preschool will want to turn thumbs-down on this turkey and wait for a high-quality and thoughtful initiative.

Read the full story here.

Dr. Alan Bonsteel is the President of California Parents for Educational Choice.

Ethics Reform in Congress

2006-02-06T15:00:00.000-08:00

Following a Little Advice from Davy Crockett Would Solve the Problem

Congress in Crisis
It is not news that Congress is embroiled in a number of ethical troubles; the biggest problem has been bribery and the perception of influence peddling. As members of Congress rush to address the problem they are dancing all around the issue; they have stopped access by members-turned-lobbyists to the House floor, they are proposing to stop gifts to members from lobbyists (including buying a meal), they have and will again propose forms of campaign finance reform, and they are addressing the practice of earmarking.

All of the issues revolve around limiting the ability to grant financial favors to member of Congress by those who seek government funding for their pet project or program and limiting the ability of members of Congress to reward favored constituents by earmarking federal funds. Most of the proposals will do nothing – nothing – to stop the practice because there is too much at stake not to influence outcomes. Today President Bush released his budget; it proposes to spend $2.7 trillion! How could you expect interested parties not to do everything they can to make sure they get their piece of the pie?

It happens at every level of government. In California the Governor has proposed a massive $68 billion infrastructure spending plan. Shortly after the release I had several conversations with major lobbyists about the prospects for the 2006 legislative session; all of them said the same thing, “This year the game is all about getting in on the governor’s bond package.” These lobbyists are not bad people; in fact they are generally honest people doing exactly what they get paid to do – get government to take your money and give it to their clients (or association members, e.g. the California Teachers’ Association or the California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association).

The Best Solution
Limit the role of government. If Congress were not throwing $2.7 trillion around, there would be a lot less interest in courting members of Congress. I realize that rolling the federal government back to a manageable size; or more appropriately to its Constitutional role is a monumental task. But, I submit, no more monumental than trying to stop the lobbyists from influencing the now-oversized government. The bottom line is, if you want to limit corruption and influence pedding in Congress you have to limit the size and scope of government.

Learning from History
Below is the text of a speech delivered by Tennessee Representative David Crockett about the proper role of the federal government. If we were to learn from his remarks and demand that our Congress adheres to the limits placed upon it by our Constitution, we would do away with almost all of the need for lobbyists; as such we would do away with the need for the Byzantine type reforms proposed to address the problem today.

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the emblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in ernest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Susan Kennedy A Look at the Left's Response

2006-02-06T12:32:00.000-08:00

For those who think that only Republicans are upset about Governor Schwarzenegger appointing a pro-abortion zealot and the former Executive Director of the California Democrat Party as his chief of staff, take a moment to read this little tidbit from the left.

Here's an exceprt from Phoblographer*

I certainly don't agree with calls for law banning anyone paid with taxpayer money from campaign work on the side. For most people lower than Kennedy, it's a necessary way to supplement meager salaries. And, frankly, a certain level of shared experience between the two sides of public service is necessary.

But on a substantive level, Kennedy doing this work? Please. She's a lifelong Democrat who has chosen to play for the wrong team. A team with a proven record of failure. How can it be worth it? For any of us?

Read the full post here.

John Madden Elected to Football Hall of Fame

2006-02-05T16:55:00.000-08:00

Madden living a dream
Ex-coach expected a call but learned of Hall of Fame selection from TV
Ira Miller, Chronicle Staff Writer

John Madden is never at a loss for words, but he was close Saturday. He stood on a podium in a hotel ballroom, arms flying, waving, gesturing, talking not in complete thoughts but in stream of consciousness.

This was the essential Madden, the Everyman to football fans, trying to keep from losing it while explaining what it meant to be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, 27 years after he coached his final game with the Oakland Raiders.

"I know as a coach that it's all about players," Madden said. "I firmly believe that. The game isn't about a lot of stuff on the outside. It's about players, and I had great players. ... They all made this possible. As a coach, if you ever start to think any other way than that, you're off base."

The Hall of Fame induction is scheduled for Aug. 6 in Canton, Ohio. Madden said he probably would choose Raiders' owner Al Davis or Madden's son, Mike, to make his presentation introduction. When Davis was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1992, Madden made the presentation, but Davis may not be up to it physically to reciprocate.

Read the full story here.

John Madden was a great coach and all around super person; his focus and his attention was always on his players. I hope Al Davis will be healthy enough to do the induction presentation; it would be appropriate. As a Raiders fan, this about the only good thing that happened this year.

More Proof...

2006-02-04T21:23:00.000-08:00

...Social liberals are usually just that, liberal.

Those who so often claim to be "moderate" Republicans, meaning they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative more often than not turn out to just be liberals. They will "hold the line" on fiscal matters for a while, but they are almost always the first to "compromise" when push comes to shove. Below is a letter written in 1998 signed by then-Brea Mayor Lynn Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax. Two years later, by taking advantage of the blanket primary and seeking Democrat votes to win the Republican nomination, Ms. Daucher won an Orange County Assembly seat in 2000. Termed out at the end of 2006, Ms. Daucher is seeking the Republican nomination for the 34th Senate District. This time she will have to run in a closed primary and she will face Assemblyman Van Tran, a stalwart Republican and popular conservative. The letter by Ms. Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax will not help her.

Even The Left Questions Reiner’s Socialized Preschool Scheme

2006-02-04T12:04:00.000-08:00

Preschool Initiative's Misguided Approach
By Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

Considering how hard it is to find prominent individuals with a selfless impulse toward public service, we shouldn't begrudge the film director Rob Reiner his efforts to expand preschool education in California.

But that's not to say that Reiner's Preschool for All initiative, which will appear on the June ballot as a constitutional amendment, is a good idea. On the contrary, it's another attempt at ballot-box budgeting featuring misleading PR and misguided pied-piper appeal.

I’ve posted several columns on OAF Blog concerning the socialized preschool initiative, for your reference they are:

Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL
Cal Chamber Opposes Preschool Initiative
Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool
Socialized Preschool Headed for California Ballot
Socialized Preschool: Where are the Democrats?
Marjie Lundstrom Lacks Education in Economics and Irony

There's Nothing Humane About This Abusive Law Suit

2006-02-02T13:20:00.000-08:00

The Humane Society of the United States, a $99 million tax exempt organization, is suing the State of California in an attempt to deny chicken farmers the state sales tax exemption for the purchase farm equipment; an exemption that is available to all farmers in California (and should be extended to all forms of manufacturing). Bear in mind, unlike the Humane Society, poultry farmers do pay plenty in income and property taxes.

The Humane Society claims that the sales tax exemption should be denied to poultry farmers because state Board of Equalization regulations prohibit the sales tax exemption to those engaged in illegal activity - in this case the Humane Society claims animal abuse. Fair enough, if poultry farmers are breaking the law then charge them with a crime. But, the Humane Society knows better and instead they turn to the San Francisco Superior Court, seeking a liberal judge and hoping that judicial activism will trump the law so they can strike a blow to the poultry industry.

If They Don't Like It, They Should Compete in the Marketplace
The truth is poultry farmers are not breaking the law; the Humane Society simply does not approve of their legal farming operations. Given their assets and income of nearly $100 million the Humane Society could get into the business of chicken farming and compete, providing consumers a choice between their more costly "humane" eggs and other eggs. I suspect they know that the bulk of consumers do not care, and would buy the cheaper (and actually equally humane) eggs. Further, it would not make sense for the Humane Society to enter the poultry business because it is not what they do; I understand. But then, get the heck out of the business of telling those who actually farm poultry how to do their business.

Fighting the Battle on Multiple Fronts
I suspect it won't be long until some Democrat in the state Legislature introduces a bill at the request of the Humane Society to refuse the sales tax exemption to poultry farmers. The good news is that such an effort would require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature as a tax increase. Farmers should be happy to have Republicans in the Legislature to protect them from such heavy-handed tactics.

Harvesting Support From the Faaaaaar Left

2006-02-02T10:51:00.000-08:00

Phil Angelides cleverly planned an announcement of support from a plethora a Chico’s Mayors and City Council members to coincide with the day that Steve Westly cleverly planned to campaign in the “backyard” of Mr. Angelides’ chief political hack Bob Mulholland. I applaud Mr. Angelides and his team for their adroit political maneuver.

However, I noticed among those listed as Angelides supporters were former Chico Mayor Michael McGinnis and former Council Member David Guzzetti. McGinnis and Guzzetti are the two comrades who organized fundraisers for the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) at Guzzetti’s old restaurant the Kramore Inn.

What next Mr. Angelides; endorsements from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?

California Teachers’ Association June Primary Endorsements

2006-02-01T11:39:00.000-08:00

On January 28th the California Teachers’ Association, a labor union, released its’ endorsement list for the June Primary election in California. The labor union endorsed the following candidates:

Democrat Primary
Governor – Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor – John Garamendi
Attorney General – Rocky Delgadillo
Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Board of Equalization Dist. 1 – Betty Yee
Board of Equalization Dist. 4 - Judy Chu

Republican Primary

Woops, there was no mention of any endorsements in the Republican primary election. Hmmm, I wonder… is that because the teachers’ union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party? Their decision to only endorse in Democrat primaries is evidence that they behave more like an affiliate of the Democrat party than an organization that represents teachers of all political philosophies and party affiliations. Shameful!

Woolsey a Shameful Representative – Sheehan a Shameful Megalomaniac

2006-02-01T09:56:00.000-08:00

One More Reason to Support Joe Nation

I do not live in the Bay Area, nor am I a Democrat. But, I would love to see center-left Assemblyman Joe Nation (right) defeat radical anti-American leftist Representative Lynn Woolsey in the Democrat primary for California's sixth congressional district.

Yesterday, Woolsey gave the disgraceful Cindy Sheehan (left) a ticket to sit in the gallery of House of Representatives during the President's State of the Union address. In her "look at me, look at me" fashion, Ms. Sheehan managed to get herself arrested for violating the House rules. Don't think for a moment that this megalomaniac didn't know she was creating a scene; or that she didn't know that she would be arrested if she refused to abide by the rules. That was her goal.

I have been blessed with three children, all of whom have at one time or another tried to gain attention by acting out in inappropriate ways (commonly called "child-like behavior"). I disciplined them and taught them better ways to gain attention. I have been rewarded by watching my three children grow into healthy and delightful people. Perhaps, Ms. Sheehan could benefit from a little old fashioned parenting.

(Pictured on the left) Woolsey's hatred of the Bush Administration and her left wing anger toward America has caused her to behave in disgraceful ways. Giving Ms. Sheehan her one ticket to the House gallery so that Sheehan could make a fool out of herself is just one more example. It is also one more reason why I hope Joe Nation wins that Democrat primary.

Truth in Advertising... Please!

2006-01-31T17:37:00.000-08:00

This rant brought to you by the Sacramento Bee.

Once again, I went nuts reading this headline in the Sacramento Bee…

Westly: Free tuition for 2-year college

TNSTAAFL!
Free? According to the story, “Westly predicted that it would cost $100 million to $200 million to make community college degree programs free, depending on student enrollment.”

Who’s $100 million to $200 million? That’s right, yours! You, the taxpayer, will have to pay the bill. Not the student who benefits from the college education. Not the parents who want their child succeed in the marketplace. Not an employer who wants a better educated employee. You.

Truth in advertising would require the newspaper headline and Mr. Westly to correctly identify this proposal as a fully taxpayer subsidized community college program. I emphasize fully subsidized because the community college program is already massively subsidized - a student only pays approximatly $1,560 in tuition for a two year degree ($26 per unit x 60 units).

Buying Your Vote
Mr. Westly’s proposal proves one thing – he has already started stumbling over himself to compete with Phil Angelides for the title of big government liberal. As each mighty Lilliputian bids the other up in an effort to win the Democrat nomination, keep your hand on your wallet. After all, somebody has got to pay for all of this free stuff.

Representative Doolittle – Please Explain

2006-01-31T16:42:00.000-08:00

According to the Associated Press, published in the San Jose Mercury News, Representative John Doolittle intervened on behalf of two Indian tribes who were clients of Jack Abramoff.

From the Mercury News, “GOP Rep. John Doolittle wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton in June 2003 criticizing the Bush administration's response to a tribal government dispute involving the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. In October 2003, Doolittle appealed in a letter to the secretary for quicker action for a Massachusetts tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoag, that was seeking federal recognition.

“Both tribes signed on with Abramoff's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, that year. Sac & Fox hired the firm in May, the Wampanoags in November. Neither tribe appears tied to Doolittle's rural Northern California district, and Doolittle is not on the House committee that handles Indian issues.”

According to the Sacramento Bee article, “In lodging a complaint against the closing of a casino, Doolittle appeared to contradict a career-long stance against gambling.

“Aides pointed to his opposition to gambling two months ago as an explanation for why Doolittle had signed a separate congressional letter aimed at blocking the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians from opening a casino in Louisiana. Two of Abramoff's tribal clients viewed that casino as competition.

“With scrutiny of Doolittle's ties to Abramoff on the rise, his aides said he had signed the letter not to help Abramoff but because he opposed gambling.

“"It should come as no surprise that Congressman Doolittle would sign a letter opposing Indian gaming, since he has an established 25-year record of fighting against the expansion of all forms of gaming here in California and across the country," said Laura Blackann, Doolittle's communications director.”

I have no problem with candidates accepting money for re-election; and I believe principled people can accept a check from anyone and then go vote their conscience. I have defended Congressman Doolittle to anyone with whom I have discussed this issue because I believe him to be a principled man and a man of conviction. But, the letters cited in the AP article and the Sacramento Bee article are cause for concern. When an elected official does something out of character it raises questions. Those questions will have to be addressed to the public; it is my hope that there is a simple explanation.

This Is a Stickup I’m Running For Office – Give Me Your Money

2006-01-30T16:39:00.000-08:00

Today the Assembly passed an “intent” version of Assemblywoman Loni Hancock’s taxpayer funded political campaigns bill, AB 583. The bill was stripped down to state the “intent” of the Legislature and then moved to the Senate by a vote of 47-31.

Rules, We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules
The reason the bill was stripped down to “intent” language was to remove the appropriation necessary to give taxpayer dollars to political candidates and to make the bill no longer an actual amendment to the Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA and an appropriation both require a 2/3 vote; a pesky little constitutional problem as Democrats see it. Realizing they couldn’t move AB 583 out of the Assembly before the “two-year bill” deadline (January 31st), Democrats stripped the bill down to “intent” language (thereby removing the appropriation and effectively no longer amending the PRA) allowing the bill to pass by a simple majority vote. The purpose of moving a bill in this fashion is to bypass those pesky rules and that pesky constitution; nobody believes that the bill will not have its’ language restored in the Senate. The bill will die an appropriate death in the upper house, but moving the “intent” language keeps the bill “in play;” so much for following the rules, or at least the spirit of the rules.

Public Financing is a Bad Idea
I commend your attention to two previous posts in this forum: First, Nurses’ Union - A Shameful and Blatant Political Power Grab; and second, Political and Campaign Finance Reform.

I also found the commentary, Soggy Bucks by Jerry Davis at CaliCapia amusing.

"Windfall" Profit Penalty Killed on Assembly Floor

2006-01-30T13:46:00.000-08:00

AB 673 (Klehs), an attempt to punish California’s oil producers, failed today on the Assembly Floor. The final vote is yet to be determined because the bill is currently “on call.” But, given the lack of “aye” votes on the first ballot and the fact that this tax increase requires a 2/3 vote of the Assembly, it is safe to declare that this bad idea is dead… for now.

Where Have All the Children Gone?

2006-01-30T12:04:00.000-08:00

The Impact of Liberalism

The recent criticism of Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Mark Leno caused me to think about a story from last year; a story about San Francisco and the dwindling number of children in the city by the bay.

An Exodus of Children
In March of 2005 the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to stem the exodus of families with children from San Francisco. According to the 2000 census San Francisco’s child population is about 14.5% of the city’s population – that is about half of the average for cities across the state and the nation. In response to the dwindling population, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formed a council to address the underlying issues that drive families with children away from the city.

A Digression
The liberal left has an insatiable appetite to answer every problem by forming a government council or commission to "study" the problem and then propose more government spending in an effort to implement "solutions" identified by the government council or commission. I remember when the state of California decided to form a commission on families with the original intent to address issues that were contributing to the breakdown of the nuclear family. It took the commission months to even define what constitutes a family – and the final definition was so broad that it would have included two members of the same college fraternity. Disgusted by the process, Assemblyman Tim Leslie resigned from the state commission.

Of Course Families with Children Are Fleeing
Perhaps if San Francisco wants to better understand why families with children have fled the city and why families with children refuse to move into the city, they could take a moment to meet Assemblyman Mark Leno. It has become fashionable to criticize Mr. Leno for his avid protection of perverts who possess child pornography and criminals in general. The criticism is appropriate and accurate; but my point is a little broader.

Mark Leno is not an aberration; he is typical of those who make up the political class in San Francisco. The same political class that has brought the people of San Francisco (for example) the Bay to Breakers run (pictured on the right) where hundreds (if not thousands) of people run around the city in the nude, and the San Francisco gay rights parade. It is a city where “tolerance” of anything sexual is acceptable, and “intolerance” for the norms of society is celebrated. As a father, I am hesitant to take my children to San Francisco and I can’t even imagine permenantly moving them into the city which, due to its’ extremist political class, has become a cesspool of perversion.

Lois Capps - U.S. Term Limits Headed for a Showdown?

2006-01-27T22:50:00.000-08:00

When Rep. Lois Capps Fails to Keep Her Promise Will U.S. Term Limits Care?

Three terms, that’s what she promised in 1998. Of course, when Lois Capps made that promise everyone knew she didn’t mean it; everyone except U.S. Term Limits. It was the financing from U.S. Term Limits that helped Lois Capps defeat Republican Tom Bordonaro.

Tom Bordonaro, a conservative, supported term limits, but refused to sign a pledge to self limit. Lois Capps did not, and does not, believe in term limits, but signed the pledge by U.S. Term Limits stating at the time that she’d likely not run for a fourth term due to her age.

It has been six years - three terms; will Lois Capps keep her promise? If she doesn’t will U.S. Term Limits help defeat her? In 2000 U.S. Term Limits spent some where in the vicinity of $1 million going after Republican George Nethercutt for breaking his pledge. Allowing Lois Capps to slide by after her cynical signing of the term limits pledge will leave a bad taste in the mouth of California Republicans who remember very well how U.S. Term Limits delivered an important victory to the Democrats in 1998.

Political and Campaign Finance Reform

2006-01-27T11:04:00.000-08:00

Political reform again in vogue, but history bodes ill for 'clean money'
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist

“The political reformers term their current cause "clean money" - providing public funds to candidates if they agree to limit spending to the amounts provided, modeled after fairly new programs in a couple of other states.

“At least (Assemblymember) Hancock and her allies are sincere, if misguided. The California Nurses Association, however, is being cynical by cherry-picking portions of her measure, and the "clean money" title, for its new ballot initiative… (emphasis added)

“It's been said before, but bears repeating: The only "reform" that makes sense is complete and immediate disclosure of contributions, with draconian penalties for obscuring their amounts or sources, then letting the chips fall where they may as voters are told who's giving to whom.”

Read the full article here.

Dan Walters is correct; I wrote a very similar commentary earlier this week which can be read here.

Getting It Right

2006-01-27T09:52:00.000-08:00

From today's Roundup...

Guess who may get involved in California's next clemency hearing? No less than former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, according to the Bee. "Starr could not be reached for comment Thursday. An ACLU press release said Starr is getting involved in the Morales case because the condemned inmate "immediately took responsibility for his actions, was distraught with remorse and has made impressive and consistent efforts to atone for his crime while in prison."

See Bill? All you had to do was take some responsibility.

The Roundup commentary (See Bill?...) is absolutely true - they get it right! Had President Clinton actually just admitted to his affairs and not perjured himself in sworn testimony, he never would have been impeached. I also think that while most people would have been disgusted by the President having sex with an intern in the oval office, they would have probably forgiven a truly repentant President. Bottom line, Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior was not the cause of his impeachment; it was his unwillingness to take responsibility for that behavior that led him to commit felony perjury in a court of law. I don't know if the Roundup staff realized it, but what they wrote is absolutely correct.

Spotted Under the Dome

2006-01-26T16:07:00.001-08:00

Former U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in the capitol today - when I saw him he was ducking in the Senate Pro Tempore Don Perata's office. Anybody know what Mr. Gephardt was doing in town? Is he a player in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary? Too bad he moved so far to the left during his years in the House - when he first arrived on Capitol Hill he was a good vote for life.

Battle of the Lilliputians

2006-01-26T13:40:00.000-08:00

State Controller Steve Westly is launching his first television ads in his bid for the Democrat nomination for governor. Reportedly, his ads will air in Chico. This is funny, because Chico is home to Jane Dolan's husband Bob Mulholland. Bob Mulholland is also, by the way, a dirty tricks specialist for the California Democrat party and a senior advisor to gubernatorial wannabe Phil Angelides. I am sure the "small market test" of Mr. Westly's campaign message in the back yard of Mr. Angelides' chief advisor was no accident. I give credit to Mr. Westly and Garry South for this stunt. So starts the battle of the Lilliputians.

Torn Between Two Lovers
Having cast himself as a "pro-business moderate" Steve Westly's biggest challenge will be capturing the base of Democrats in the party primary election in June. To emerge victorious, he will have to convince party loyalists that he has not abandoned his very liberal roots without destroying his chances of appealing to moderate voters in the November general election.

Phil Angelides' credentials as a card-carrying leftwing looney are totally in tact. He not only countenanced the abhorrent behavior of Bob Mulholland during his stint as Democrat party chairman, he has brought his buddy "Baghdad" Bob onto the campaign - that alone makes him good with party activists. The challenge Angelides faces is not winning the affection of party loyalists; rather it will be in convincing party financiers that he can actually win in November.

The Remaking of Westly
Make no mistake about the liberal credentials of Steve Westly. His transformation from a leftist Jimmy Carter delegate to "moderate" eBay business executive was one that occurred not by choice, but instead due to the thwarting of Mr. Westly's political ambitions by former governor Jerry Brown.

As a young man, just 24 years old, Steve Westly was elected Treasurer of the California Democrat Party (CDP); he advanced steadily serving as the Northern California party chairman, and later party vice chairman. Westly was in line to be party chairman of the nations' most liberal state Democrat party, and he was counting on his chairmanship to launch his career in elective office.

But, a funny thing happened on the way to the bank; Jerry Brown decided that he needed to reinvent his political career. Joined by the party's moneyed interests, Jerry Brown challenged Westly for control of the CDP. Westly appealed to party activists and ran to the left of Jerry Brown, but with the support of establishment party money Brown beat Westly.

After losing the bid for party chairman Steve Westly retreated to his alma mater Stanford to teach at the graduate business school. Through contacts he was able to be involved in some high tech startups, and eventually landed with a little company called eBay where he made his $100 million fortune.

With money in hand and no longer a need for the gritty work of rubbing elbows with party activists, Westly has been able to jumpstart his dream of running for public office. His independence from the party structure has allowed him to portray himself as a moderate; but, in doing so he also runs the risk of losing his own party nomination.

It is interesting that party moderates defeated Steve Westly in his first path to elective office, and now it appears that liberal party activists might prove to be the roadblock on this new path.

A Constructive Proposal

2006-01-25T17:04:00.000-08:00

At 11:00 this morning Assembly Republicans rolled out their plan to substantially meet California's infrastructure needs without incurring mountains of debt. Credit it due to Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy for championing this issue; and praise is due to the hard working policy staff at the Assembly Republican Caucus for developing a positive, constructive and sensible infrastructure proposal.

Credit must also be given to Jon Fleischman at the Flashreport for scooping everyone in California with the full story - here.

I am glad to see constructive proposals introduced to meet the infrastructure needs of the state without incurring billions in debt. This is type of policy discussion that makes the legislature a great deliberative body - that's if there is any discussion; remember, the Democrats will most likely just bury this proposal. I hope I am wrong; it will be interesting to see what the Democrats and the governor do with the Assembly Republican's pay-as-you-go option.

Standing Representative Democracy on Its’ Head

2006-01-25T10:28:00.000-08:00

Governor sidesteps assisted suicide
Dan Smith, Sacramento Bee

Dan Smith with the Sacramento Bee writes today about the governor’s comments at the annual Sacramento Press Club luncheon yesterday. When asked about legalizing assisted suicide Governor Schwarzenegger reportedly said, “I have all along never really put my own personal opinions into making policies and making those kind of, you know, especially difficult decisions like that.”

“I personally think that this is a decision that probably should go to the people, like the death penalty or other big issues," Schwarzenegger said. "I think let the people of California make that decision. I don't think that 120 legislators and I should make that decision."

It warms my heart to think that we spend our time voting for and electing people who get paid in excess of $120,000 a year so they can bypass the “hard” decisions and put them to the voters. While I do not support the assisted suicide bill, I do have to give credit to Assemblyman Lloyd Levine who evidently grasps the concept of a representative democracy. Levine reportedly said that voters expect the Legislature and the governor to decide the issue. "We're not going to punt. We're going to do our job," he said.

On Another Note
Does anyone find it odd that the governor doesn’t put his "own personal opinions into making policies”? Is this the same governor who said that his radically liberal Democrat chief of staff would carry out his policies – or implement his agenda? If the governor has no inclination to insert his personal opinions into major policy decisions, then just exactly whose opinions and ideas is Ms. Kennedy implementing?

Nurse’s Union - A Shameful and Blatant Political Power Grab

2006-01-24T23:00:00.000-08:00

Nurses Propose Donor Limits
Today in the L.A. Times Dan Morain writes about an effort by the California Nurse’s Association (a labor union) to qualify a ballot initiative to radically change California’s campaign finance system. According to the story the nurse’s union will seek to prohibit corporate donations and establish public financing for candidates seeking office. Assembly candidates who opt for public financing will receive $250,000 for their party primary and an additional $400,000 for the general election. People running for Governor would receive $10 million and $15 million respectively. Here’s the kicker, since corporations will be banned from donating directly to candidates, nurses have decided to keep them “in the system” by paying for the public financing through higher corporate income tax rates. Evidently, the nurse’s union will allow candidates to donate as much of their own personal wealth as they want for their own campaign - how convenient since they would be Constitutionally prohibited from preventing it.

Need a Job? Run for Office.
The idea of public financing of campaigns is repugnant at cannot work. If a candidate qualifies for $250,000 in a party primary and $400,000 in a general election for an Assembly race there will surely be hundreds of candidates filing for each seat. How would taxpayers feel about financing candidates from bizarre political parties, or dozens of independents (DTS) in the general election? A general election for an Assembly seat could regularly cost taxpayers over $3.2 million ($400,000 x Republican, Democrat, American Independent, Libertarian, Green, Reform, and throw in a couple of independents for good measure). And remember, every two years all 80 Assembly candidates must run for election - that would total a mere $256 million on just the Assembly races. How about $15 million for Gary Coleman when he files again to be our Governor? Or worst, porn star Mary Carey? Just for fun, I think I might run for the Assembly and just like Representative Bob Filner, hire my wife as my campaign consultant. We could bilk the taxpayers for at least $250,000 and pocket the bulk of it. Or, what the heck, renounce my political party and we could jump right into the general election for a cool $400,000 - I think we could survive on $200,000 a year. How could you stop me? It would be unconstitutional to fund one candidate and not another if they both meet the qualifications to seek public office.

Donation Limits - Only the Rich Need Apply
Severely limiting the amount an individual or organization can contribute to a candidate diminishes the ability of the “common” person to seek public office. Under the U.S. Constitution it is impossible to limit an individual from spending as much as he wants on his own election. The only equalizer for those who are not personally wealthy is the ability to raise money through donations. The more severe the limit on individual donations, the harder it is to level the financial playing field.

A Better Solution
As long as government has an unfathomable role in regulating the market place - picking business "winners and losers" and promoting the cause of private and public employee unions oodles of money will flow into campaign coffers; no matter how the state attempts to limit that money. The only way to reduce spending on campaigns is to severly reduce the scope of government which would then remove the incentive to invest in elections. Since that won't happen and heaps of money will continue to be spent influencing elections, the best thing to do is to create transparency in our campaign finance system; eliminate limits on contribution levels and provide for full and immediate disclosure of donations. Voters would know who is financing a candidate's campaign and opponents could make an issue of it if a candidate is being "bought" by a particular special interest.

The California Nurse's Association Should Be Ashamed
This initiative is a blatant power grab and vendetta by the nurse’s union. Their claim that they are trying to cure a corrupt political system by prohibiting corporate donations to campaigns and initiatives, while allowing labor unions to donate to candidates (with limits) and initiatives does not pass the giggle test.

Every Twelve Hours

2006-01-22T09:28:00.000-08:00

There’s an old saying that even broken clocks are right twice a day. Steve Lopez, a leftist columnist from the L.A. Times, whom I would consider a broken clock, is right in his column today.

Deals So Sweet They'll Kill Us
Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times

...If you hadn't already noticed, while the rest of us watch our retirement benefits shrivel up and blow away, public sector retirement deals are sweeter than ever. And we're footing the bill.

...Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to sound an alert last year. But the big gorilla killed any chance for a serious discussion by bullying cops, teachers and firefighters, making them out to be the bad guys.

Now there's even less of a chance for honest leadership, because it's an election year — a time when no politician dares speak the truth, especially if it means risking donations from public employee unions. Meanwhile, evidence is mounting across the state that we're headed for disaster as the bills come due on all the Cadillac retirement plans out there.

Although Right Twice Per Day, Broken Clocks are Still Broken
Lopez correctly credits the Governor for his effort to reform the public pension system. Where Mr. Lopez goes wrong is in his blaming the failure of that reform on the Governor’s tactics. History tells us that the problem was in a “drafting error” in the pension reform initiative that stripped benefits to widows of firefighters and police officers. When this error was found, the Governor rightly withdrew the initiative and public pension reform died. But, the real story and one that any inquisitive reporter would address, is why did the Governor have to take reform to the initiative process in the first place? Where were the majority Democrats in the legislature? Why did Democrats seek to destroy the public pension reform instead of constructively working on a solution to benefit California?

A Perfect Storm
Eventually, the coming pension crisis is going to hit California like a level 5 hurricane holding hands with a seven point earthquake. When municipalities begin to file bankruptcy the state will have the option of “bailing them out,” but when the state can no longer afford its obligations, where will we turn? Republicans have tried to address the public pension issue, and Democrats will have none of it. But, what can one expect of the majority Democrats when their biggest campaign contributors are public employee unions?

Marjie Lundstrom Lacks Education in Economics and Irony

2006-01-21T10:28:00.000-08:00

Marjie Lundstrom: Irony abounds as Gap heir opposes public preschool initiative
Sacramento Bee 1/21/06

For years, the Gap stores have made money on kids, on coaxing parents (especially first-timers) to drop big bucks on trendy little outfits with matching hats and socks and shoes and other perky accessories.

So it's interesting, to say the least, that the son of Gap Inc. founder and chairman emeritus Donald Fisher - whose family fortune was built on outfitting young people - is opposing the new Preschool for All initiative.

There is no irony in a captialist opposing socialism, but for Ms. Lundstrom to understand that she would need to understand the concept of free enterprise. Perhaps if Ms. Lundstrom understood that Gap stores have been successful in a competitive marketplace; that they have provided a product that people choose to purchase over other possibilities, she would understand why Mr. Fisher opposes a state-run preschool monopoly funded by confiscating money from a small number of people.

Perhaps if more people clothed their children in products from Walmart and not from the Gap, they could afford to send their children to one of the many preschool choices they already have available. But, that would require people to value preschool more than fancy brand name clothes. As I have previously written, the only reason the socialized preschool initiative has a chance of passing is because people will vote to get something that they want if they think they do not have to pay for it (see Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL).

On another note, Ms. Lundstom fundamentally misunderstands irony. Irony illustrated: a man is on an airplane that crashes, all passengers parish except him because he was in the bathroom. Two weeks later, while sitting on the commode in his home the same man is killed when an airplane crashes into his house. That is irony. Mr. Fisher’s position on the socialized preschool initiative might be interesting, but it is not ironic. In fact, Mr. Fisher's position on socialized preschool really isn't all that interesting, it actually makes sense.

Death Penalty Moratorium – On Life Support

2006-01-20T15:26:00.000-08:00

Soft on crime Democrats prove they are not stupid.

Assembly Bill 1121 by Assemblyman Paul Koretz to place a two year moratorium on the death penalty failed to pass out of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations yesterday which means that the bill is “dead” – or at least on life support.

Election year politics played into the decision by Assembly Democrats to hold the bill in committee. According to the AP, Koretz said, "There are enough Democrats that are worried that this would be misinterpreted - as it intentionally has been - that we made an agreement not to bring it up unless we were sure it would pass." I guess the Democrats don’t mind the idea of snuffing out the death penalty; they just don’t want the voters to hold them accountable for doing it.

Koretz vowed to revive his bill later (evidently, Assemblywoman Patty Berg won’t be administering any treatment). Rest assured though, Democrats will advance their agenda to save killers after the elections.

This reminds me of that oft repeated quote by the statesman Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) who used to say, “We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party."

GOP Party Infighting – Don’t Blame the Right

2006-01-20T12:36:00.000-08:00

Restive GOP Activists May Stage Revolt
By Peter Nicholas

Republican activists disenchanted with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that they will try to strip the governor of the party's endorsement unless he fires his new chief of staff, Democrat Susan P. Kennedy.

Restive Republicans said they would rally conservatives behind a resolution, to be offered at the state GOP convention in San Jose next month, that may give Schwarzenegger an ultimatum: Dump Kennedy by March 15 or the party will withdraw its backing of his reelection bid.

Rushing to Endorse Was the Real Mistake
The California Republican Party voted for an early endorsement of Governor Schwarzenegger’s reelection last year. The move was extraordinary because the party usually does not endorse prior to the Primary election, but some felt it was necessary to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to run in 2006. Now that the CRP has put all of its eggs in the Schwarzenegger basket, a number of party delegates are regretting their extraordinary action.

The early endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger was not necessary in the first place, and clamoring about it now makes the party look bad. Perhaps there is a lesson here about jumping into drifting vessels. Maybe the party will learn to be more judicious in the future.

Don’t Blame Conservatives
One regret that I have over this party infighting is that it will be blamed on social conservatives by the mainstream media and later used by the left within the party as an excuse to dismiss social conservatives as destructive to party success.

The truth is, this quarrel is the making of those within the party, both conservatives and liberals, who tossed philosophy to the wind to “get a win.” They never vetted their candidate and now many of them, both liberal and conservative, are upset that their candidate is not who they imagined him to be. Those activists backed Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall and also in urging the early party endorsement, and now they are angry. Blaming Arnold Schwarzenegger for being Arnold Schwarzenegger at this point is a little like cursing the sun for rising in the East.

Welcome to the hotel California!

Challenge From the Left - the Far Left

2006-01-19T16:08:00.000-08:00

McCloskey takes challenge to run against Pombo
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen

Former Peninsula Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey Jr., best remembered for his Vietnam War opposition and his speech calling for the impeachment of President Nixon, will announce his candidacy Monday in Lodi as a Republican challenger to Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.

Pombo's response...

"From what I've heard, Mr. McCloskey sounds more like a liberal Democrat candidate than a Republican," said Pombo, who was 11 years old when McCloskey challenged Nixon for president in 1972.

Pete McCloskey speaking at a Kerry rally in Sacramento.

Given that McCloskey is a radical envrionmentalist, Vietnam War protestor, and John Kerry campaign supporter Mr. Pombo is right, he sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican. McCloskey called for the impeachment of Richard Nixon and has campaigned against President Bush - I wonder if he has ever supported a Republican for President? If McCloskey moves into Representative Pombo's district to run, he ought to register as a Democrat - the platform of that party more closely reflects his views than does the platform of the Republican party. Bottom line: Representative Pombo will win and no good will come from the McCloskey challenge.

San Francisco America’s Most Liberal Intolerant City

2006-01-18T11:51:00.000-08:00

Another example of leftwing intolerance from the City by the Bay.

Governor's appearance at King breakfast angers city's labor leaders
by Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

Local labor leaders are fuming over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's last-minute appearance at the annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in San Francisco -- and a lot of their anger is directed at former Mayor Willie Brown.

"We've spent a year and a half, and millions of dollars fighting this SOB,'' San Francisco Labor Council head Tim Paulson said of the governor. "For him to come to this breakfast was an absolute insult."

According to Matier and Ross, Paulson said that he “went absolutely crazy” and told MLK organizers that they should tell “him (the Governor) he’s not welcome here.”

Paulson went on to refer to Speaker Willie Brown as a pimp for Arnold Schwarzenegger and he said that Brown has, “gone over to the other side.” In his always classy and disarming way, Mr. Speaker chuckled, “It’s too bad he didn’t say the dark side.”

Is proposing freedom for labor union members to determine how their union dues should be spent a reasonable basis to bar a Republican Governor from speaking about civil rights on a day that honors civil rights advocate Martin Luther King, Jr.? Apparently, in the judgment of leftwing loonies it is.

This story is just one more example of how vitriolic the left is, especially in San Francisco (refer to my recent post The Intolerant Left - Another Example). And, Paulsen used a play from the liberal playbook when he called Speaker Brown a pimp and Governor Schwarzenegger a SOB.

Shameless Self Promotion

2006-01-18T10:06:00.000-08:00

It dawns on me that someone might actually be reading OAF Blog on occasion. If you are, and you like what you read, please feel free to let your friends know. Also, just because I get a little lonely - well, not lonely actually, but because I like a healthy discussion, please feel free to leave comments. My rule on comments is that I will not moderate them unless they are inappropriate (foul - after all, my children read this blog sometimes) or an unfounded personal attack on somebody. I also encourage you to use your blog name or choose a name - a quirky or fun name is better than "anonymous." Finally, if you do leave comments, check back - I usually reply.

OK, enough shameless self promotion (actually, this is all about my self esteem).

Socialized Preschool: Where Are the Democrats?

2006-01-17T17:31:00.000-08:00

Speaking today at the California Manufacturers & Technology Association luncheon Senate Pro Tempore Don Perata commented that one of his tasks this year is to reign in his caucus. He told the audience that he has informed members of the caucus that “they can be as liberal as they want to be,” but that they would have to restrain some of their big spending ideas for the time being (this was in the context of running up bond debt and still being fiscally responsible).

While I found the comment interesting, what I found truly fascinating was the way in which the Senate leader seemed to bemoan outside spending proposals like the Reiner socialized preschool initiative; it seemed that Senator Perata was genuinely concerned about the impact of the $2.4 billion scheme.

It was then that I began to wonder... will Democrat leaders in this state have the courage to come out in opposition to the Reiner socialized preschool initiative? Or, will they quietly complain about it among Sacramento insiders, and remain silent otherwise to avoid upsetting their leftwing political base?

Socialized Preschool Headed For California Ballot

2006-01-15T09:17:00.000-08:00

From the Sacramento Bee

The universal preschool initiative backed by actor-director Rob Reiner has qualified for the June ballot, the Secretary of State's Office said Friday.

The measure would tax individual annual incomes of over $400,000 - $800,000 for couples - to provide public preschool for all California 4-year-olds.

The full story is here.

I have already written on this subject and commend your attention to the two posts:

The first, Econ 101: There is no Such Thing as a Free Lunch addresses the reality that people would choose to send their children to preschool if they thought it was important. The concept is called opportunity cost - loosely defined as what you give up when you choose one item for another. An example, you choose to go to work right out of high school rather than going to college. The immediate benefit of that choice is income - the “opportunity cost” would be the forgone income you might receive by obtaining a higher paying job with a college degree.

The second, Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool. The article provides a thought provoking analysis using comparisons of the universal daycare program implemented in Quebec eight years ago.

Finally, after watching the John Stossel special on ABC’s 20/20 Friday night "Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids," I wonder if we are dooming our children to state-run preschool rather than providing them with the opportunity for early education.

By the way, I call it socialized preschool, well, because it is - take from wealthy (those who have the audacity to earn over $400,000) and redistribute thier wealth to those who earn less - in this case in the form of providing government-run preschool.

The Intolerant Left - Another Example

2006-01-13T14:47:00.000-08:00

Two of the most likely places that free speech will be attacked today are on any college campus and in the liberal city of San Francisco. In the most recent display of total contempt for a diversity of thought, leftist abortion advocates are trying to prevent the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church from displaying pro-life advertisements on BART trains and in BART stations.

Are the abortion promoters upset by the violent or grotesque nature of the advertisements? No! (see below) Instead, they are disturbed by any diversity of thought and expression because it might cause someone, anyone, to be persuaded to disagree with them. Some leftists have called for outright removal of the signs; others have complained that BART officials did not call to “warn” them about the ads. Removal? I guess censorship by government agencies (BART) is something the loony left openly supports now. Perhaps they will get WalMart ads off the television too. Warn them? I guess BART should call, for example, Chevy and “warn” them next time Ford purchases ad space – of course, then they’d also have to call Dodge, Toyota, etc.; that might not be practical.

Then there are the more action oriented Bay Area liberals who are not content with trying to use government to censor free speech, so they have destroyed the posters. From the San Francisco Chronicle…

“Critics of the ads also seem to be taking matters into their own hands. Hundreds of the ads have been defaced with markers, had stickers placed over them or have been torn down and ripped up, according to Monika Rodman, coordinator of the group that placed the ads.

"The defacement has taken to religious epithets, profanity, everything you can think of,'' she said. A billboard at the MacArthur station in Oakland was torn to shreds, she said, and mini essays were written on others.” ("Anti-abortion ad on BART angers activists," 1/13/06)

Defacing and destroying the property of those who dare to oppose you – they think that’s okay. But, by all means, do not allow free speech or dissention.

The advertisements placed on BART by the Oakland Diocese are both factual and tasteful – I’ve posted both ad posters above and you can see the full size posters here.

Why is the liberal left so violently opposed to free speech or debate on public policy? Could it be that even the liberal left no longer has faith in the power of its’ own ideas?

LAO Overview of the Governor's Budget

2006-01-12T16:38:00.000-08:00

"The 2006-07 Governor's Budget now projects that the state will be able to fund much more than a current-law budget and still maintain fiscal balance in 2006-07. The plan, however, moves the state in the wrong direction in terms of reaching its longer-term goal of getting its fiscal house in order. Given the state's current structural budget shortfall, we believe that the 2006-07 budget should focus more on paying down existing debt before making expansive new commitments." ~ LAO's Overview of the Governor's Budget.

You too can be "in the know" by reading the Legislative Analyst's report here.

Former State Party Chair: Dump Schwarzenegger

2006-01-12T14:57:00.000-08:00

Michael Schroeder, former Chairman of the California Republican Party, was published in the Orange County Register today stating that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should not run for re-election and that he should no longer enjoy the endorsement of the California Republican Party if he does so.

Schroeder said, "The Republican Party needs to move on. The focus should be on developing our team with candidates who can win the governor's office and then govern as Republicans. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and State Sen. Tom McClintock (the leading candidate for lieutenant governor) have strong statewide reputations and are rising stars.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is simply a longshot who failed to work out."

You can read the article by clicking here.

A Win for Taxpayers

2006-01-11T17:41:00.000-08:00

From the Franchise Tax Board today:

The three-member Franchise Tax Board today named Selvi Stanislaus, 45, a Board of Equalization tax attorney, as the department’s fourth executive officer. Her appointment is effective January 17, 2006. She succeeds Gerald H. Goldberg who retired in August.

The Franchise Tax Board is comprised of State Controller and FTB Chair Steve Westly, Chair of the Board of Equalization John Chiang, and Director of Finance Michael C. Genest.

The appointment requires senate confirmation.

Sources say there will be no difficulty obtaining Senate confirmation, and I am told by insiders that her appointment is a win for taxpayers.

Beating Up On Oil Companies

2006-01-11T17:01:00.000-08:00

Assembly Committee Passes Penalty for "Windfall" Profits

The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation passed AB 673 (Klehs) by a vote of 4-3 yesterday. AB 673 will impose a "windfall profits" penalty equal to 2.5% of the so-called "windfall profits" earned by a petroleum producer or petroleum refiner based in California. Voting for the bill was author and committee Chairman Johan Klehs (D-San Leandro) joined by Assemblymembers Judy Chu (D-Montery Park), Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) and Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View); voting against the bill were committee Vice-Chair Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) and Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) who were joined by Democrat Joe Canciamilla (Pittsburg).

I could fully explore the impact of a California-specific "windfall profits" tax and the negative impact on oil production and refining in the Golden State - which is a good reason to vote against AB 673. But, the issues surrounding price controls transcend our local economy (or at least they should). As such, I commend to your attention the Econ 101 post on voluntary exchange which addressed the efficacy of price controls in the marketplace.

Walter Williams wrote, "Economic ignorance is to politicians what idle hands are to the devil. Both provide the workshop for the creation of evil." He is right. Should I email the voluntary exchange post to Assemblyman Klehs (pictured above with his key economic advisor)? Do any of you think it would matter?

Death Penalty Update

2006-01-11T11:16:00.000-08:00

Legislative panel votes to suspend executions
by Mark Martin- SF Chronicle

Sacramento -- An effort to suspend the death penalty was narrowly approved by a legislative committee Tuesday as proponents argued the state's legal system could execute an innocent person.

Igniting a legislative debate on capital punishment, Democrats advanced a bill that calls for a death penalty moratorium for two years as a commission studies how best to prevent wrongful convictions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for changes in the legal system to the Legislature by 2008. (Full story here.)

AB 1121 passed with the support of four Democrat Assemblymembers: Mark Leno, Jackie Goldberg, Merv Dymally and Lonnie Hancock.

I commend to your attention the well written analysis by Jerry Davis at CaliCapia. To read the commentary click here.

On the A.G. Race - A Prescription for Victory

2006-01-10T17:39:00.000-08:00

It appears likely that Senator Chuck Poochigian (left) will face former Governor Jerry Brown (right) in the contest to be California's Attorney General. On the merits, Senator Poochigian is far better qualified for the job both in temperament and philosophy. Notwithstanding the merits however, a campaign against a well-known former Governor will be an uphill battle. But, liberal Democrats in the legislature are doing thier best to help Senator Poochigian - or, so it appears.

Unable to show any restraint, extremely liberal members of the Democrat Caucus have introduced Assembly Bill 1121 (Koretz and Lieber) which will impose a moratorium on California's death penalty. In the wake of the much publicized execution of gang-leader and vicious murderer Stanley Williams, Democrats are once again attempting to abolish California's death penalty. Assembly Bill 1121, a step toward repeal, will generate a healthy discussion by proponents and opponents about the death penalty, thereby assuring that this issue will be on the mind of voters this year. Such debate will help Senator Poochigian and hurt Jerry Brown.

For those who are too young (or those who suffer memory loss) a little history lesson is in order. It was Governor Jerry Brown who appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Rose Bird had no prior judicial experience, but she did bring to the court a philosophy of liberal judicial activism. Bird personally opposed the death penalty and voted to overturn it in each of the 61 cases that came before her. Public disgust over the activist court headed by Rose Bird, and particularly her opposition to the death penalty led to her removal from the court by voters in November of 1986.

As Jerry Brown attempts to convince voters that he is qualified to be California’s “top cop” his appointment of Rose Bird and his own historical opposition to the death penalty will surely not be his friend, and he can thank fellow liberals in the legislature for drudging up history.

On the merits, Senator Poochigian is better qualified to be California’s Attorney General than is Jerry Brown; if voters compare the two candidates they will know this to be ture. However, given Jerry Brown's high name identification, it will be the process of capturing the attention of voters for a “down-ticket” race that will ail Senator Poochigian. A debate on the death penalty will focus the attention of voters on the race for Attorney General; dispensed by Paul Koretz and Sally Lieber, AB 1121 just may be a prescription for victory.

A Glimpse at the Liberal Playbook

2006-01-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

Letterman Blew the Play

As a conservative and political advocate I have been called just about everything imaginable by left-wing political activists and college professors (a distinction without a difference). It used to take a toll on my self esteem, but recently I became aware that the name calling is not really sincere, it is actually nothing more than a well designed play from the liberal playbook. It goes something like this… make an argument and hope that it is not intellectually challenged. If the argument is intellectually challenged do not attempt to reason (you might strain your brain); instead, call the person who offers an alternative view a liar (mean-spirited, jerk, bigot, moron, *&^%$ - you get the idea). If that does not silence your “adversary” then dismiss everything they say as a lie and discredit them as a person of bad character.

If you stay up late at night you may have seen this play attempted by the gap-toothed Indianan, David Letterman. For some reason, and one that I can’t figure out, Letterman invited Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly to appear as his guest. It was clear from the start of the conversation that Letterman wanted to pick an argument with O’Reilly and he succeeded in his goal. Upon questioning O’Reilly about the Christmas controversy, Letterman first denied the controversy exists and then (when presented with examples) said that he did not believe Mr. O’Reilly. (Playbook review: call the person a liar.)

Letterman then engaged O’Reilly on the war in Iraq, and when unable to carry on a civil conversation admitted, “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. But I don’t know that for a fact.”

Letterman then blew the play by disclosing too much. The conversation continued:

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”
Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”
O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”
Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”
O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.” (OAF: generalizations always require an example, without one they are not valid).
Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”
O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”
Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

Let’s dissect the conversation. Letterman admits he is incapable of debating issues with Bill O’Reilly (this is where he blew the play – he’s not supposed to admit to being intellectually outmatched – someone needs to get him to re-education camp), and then goes on to dismiss O’Reilly arguments as lies. Not satisfied with saying O’Reilly lied on any one subject, Letterman just calls him a liar in general (playbbok review: if you can’t dispute the argument intellectually, attack the character of your “adversary”). Letterman also disclosed too much by actually admitting that his opinion about O’Reilly is uninformed (again, re-education camp is needed here).

Final analysis: Don't be too hard on David Letterman – he is an entertainer not a political commentator, and he was out of his league trying to “cross over.” In fact, for me Mr. Letterman’s actions were liberating – he made me plainly see that I am not really a liar (moron, etc.) as I have been accused so many times by the leftists I’ve encountered. To that end, I want to thank David Letterman for allowing the restoration of my self esteem.