1776

June 29, 2006

Texas Redistricting

Most supporters of election reform in California have redistricting at the top of the list of things that need to be changed. The current system in California is nothing more than an incumbent protection program with our legislators sitting down every 10 years and securing their own seats.

In the last two statewide elections, not one of the 153 state assembly, state senate or United States Congressional seats changed parties, this at a time when our satisfaction with our elected officials is close to all-time low.

51 of the 53 House races held in 2004 were won by margins exceeding 20%.

Until the general election matters, we will continue to send people to Sacramento who represent their party, not their constituents.

Texas has been having redistricting battles for the past few years, to the point where Democratic members of the legislature ran and hid in Oklahoma a couple of years ago so they couldn’t be forced to vote. They did however challenge the Republicans (Tom DeLay) 2003 gerrymandering and the case wound up in the Supreme Court.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court (made up of the only nine people in the country with more job security than state legislators in gerrymandered districts) determined that, with minor and specific exceptions, redistricting may happen more frequently than every 10 years and that the party in power in the legislature can basically create whatever districts they want, whenever they want – the people be damned.

This does not bode well for California and those of us working on redistricting need to pay attention to this case and not duplicate the mistakes made in Texas.

Posted by sharris at 06:49 AM

MTA & union – working together?

The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) reached agreement Tuesday with their 7,000 union members. The agreement was reached before the deadline, avoiding what would have been the 4th strike in the past 12 years and was done with a sense of civility and cooperation not seen often enough – but to be applauded here.

Said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (who finds himself in the middle of another compromise situation)….

“We’ve reached an accord that is fair to both our employees and fiscally responsible to the (MTA),”

With the recent bond compromise in Sacramento, the deal that Mayor Villaraigosa worked out with the LAUSD and now this, maybe we’ve reached a point where constituents’ interests are beginning to play a role in our elected officials decisions. Novel, but positive!

Posted by sharris at 06:46 AM

June 28, 2006

Australia stands with the United States

It is a sad truth that many of our “allies” are simply fair-weather friends. Many Americans continue to be concerned about what countries like France think and have to say, as if they are still supporters of America and the American way of life.

While Great Britain has no doubt been a friend of America, as we have been to them, one country stands out in their support of America – Australia.

Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent column, A loyal ally, mate detailing their long standing support and it’s well worth reading.

Posted by sharris at 06:53 AM

Sacramento budget compromise!

For those of us who believe that the successful future of California lies in compromise, this is a pretty good day.

Agreement was reached this week on the state-spending plan, a whopping $131 billion dollars. For this to happen, both parties actually compromised and took tentative steps toward the center. This is dangerously close to rational and if party leaders don’t panic, maybe this newfound willingness to work together for the betterment of Californians can continue.

A sampling of remarks from those who engineered this deal…

“It’s a good budget for all Californians, and it is also a very good budget for both parties. For the Democrats and the Republicans it is a great compromise. And I am happy that we are able to be successful in that, especially in an election year when normally nothing is ever done.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

“Democrats are expressing our newly found fiscal conservatism,”

Democratic Senate Leader Dan Perata

“I think the process this year was probably a good one. I think everyone was reasonably happy with it.”

Republican Senate Leader Dick Ackerman

“We’re still left with a dramatic budget deficit next year and if Governor Schwarzenegger is reelected … the bloom will be off the rose: He will cut schools; he will raise tuition and fees.”

Hopelessly out-of-touch Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides

Posted by sharris at 06:42 AM

June 27, 2006

Amgen begins pullout

What many of us have feared, even anticipated, is now official. Amgen, with 8,000 employees located in Thousand Oaks has officially begun leaving California. They have determined that Colorado is a better place for them to build their future than California.

While Amgen has not announced how many jobs are being transferred to their Longmont Colorado facility, the handwriting is certainly on the wall.

Debbie Ford, Amgen’s Colorado spokeswomen said “The Longmont area’s cheaper cost of living, local work force, quality of life and available land on its campus made moving the jobs an attractive opportunity.”

Ford continues “It’s certainly good news. Amgen is investing in Longmont as part of it’s future.”

For those in this county and in this state who still have their heads buried in the sand, please – pull them out. These are not the manufacturing jobs that have been callously and foolishly allowed / forced to leave the state, these are the high tech, clean, next generation jobs that we claim to have coveted. This is not a failing company desperately trying to stay afloat, this is one of the nations largest and most successful companies.

They have made a business decision to take their jobs and our future elsewhere. For those elected officials who believe that no growth fanaticism (both business and residential), coupled with policies that make us the nations leader in regulatory burdens carry no consequences, I can only hope that you’re the next in line to lose your job!

Posted by sharris at 10:37 AM

Smoking vs. abortion

I am not a smoker, never have been, but I do watch with interest the efforts to eliminate smoking from our society. It started in public areas and is now moving quickly into the private arena. In California, we have seen our way clear to forbid smoking in restaurants. This in spite of the fact that restaurants are private businesses and both the employees and the patrons have thousands of other options. In March of this year, following California being the first state in the nation to declare second-hand tobacco smoke a toxic air pollutant, Calabasas proudly enacted the nations toughest public anti-smoking laws.

Now, Arkansas Democratic Representative Bob Mathis, who has already successfully passed legislation making it illegal to smoke in cars with young children as passengers, is wondering about the viability of legislation that would prohibit mothers from smoking while pregnant.

He has support for this exploration from George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, who has recently added an attack against fast food restaurants to his well documented work as an anti-smoking crusader and says “Since court after court has held that smoking is not a fundamental right like voting, and that smokers are not a protected class like African-Americans or women, the government has wide leeway in fashioning a remedy for whatever it concludes is a problem requiring corrective action.”

Beyond the sheer audacity of continuing to try and dictate and control the private lives of Americans, while at the same time continually questioning the “religious rights” right to attempt to dictate any type of behavior, I am wondering how this will impact the discussion of abortion.

The left offers two arguments in favor of unlimited abortions.

First, the fetus is not alive, not yet a human being and so it has no rights. If that’s the case, what does it matter if the mother smokes? It would seem difficult to justify both positions.

Second, whether or not the fetus is alive, the mothers right to control her own body (reproductive system) trumps those of the fetus. Again, it would seem a bit counter intuitive to argue that society has no right to tell you if you can abort a fetus, but we can tell you whether or not you can smoke while pregnant.

Most fanatics are not bothered by issues of logic and consistency, but it would be entertaining to see this issue addressed by those who support unlimited abortion rights and at the same time, want to eliminate smoking privileges for pregnant women. Any takers?

Posted by sharris at 12:04 AM

June 26, 2006

Term Limit momentum

Californians continue to be disappointed with their elected officials (as every poll shows) and involved Californians continue to see election reform as a logical answer to bringing “representative” back to representative democracy.

One option that is gathering momentum is term limit reform. While a future column will take a deeper look at George Washington, FDR and Willie Brown, suffice it to say that for a variety of reasons, term limits have not worked out the way we intended. For starters, term limits are a direct challenge to representative democracy. Why shouldn’t we have whomever we elect for as long as we elect them?

There is also a practical side. A California State Assembly Person is limited to six years (three terms) on the job. Done right, it is not an easy job and between the learning curve required and the constant fundraising and campaigning (an election every two years), how much are we really getting out of our elected officials?

Now, there is now some momentum gathering to ease term limits in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times has a front page article today about the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters (among others) who are asking the City Council to bring this issue to the voters in November.

For those of us who support term limit reform, local or statewide, this is a significant step forward and very welcome. If you have a chance, read the article and let me know what you think. Thank you.

Posted by sharris at 08:30 AM

June 25, 2006

Naked emperor

This story is for those who think that some in the world of fine art occasionally take themselves a bit too seriously and maybe don’t always know much more than the rest of us.

Artist David Hensel submitted a sculpture of a human head to the Royal Academy in London. Separately, he sent a block of slate with a wooden plinth to display his artwork.

Museum officials, thinking both were artistic submissions and unable to recognize that one was simply a display base, rejected the artwork and mistakenly displayed the plinth as a piece of art. When the mistake was discovered, officials responded with “The head was rejected. The base was thought to have merit and accepted.”

Next time you’re visiting a museum and just don’t get it, remember, maybe there’s nothing to get☺

Posted by sharris at 10:27 AM

**Road Rage! $#^&*@#**

Today’s column in the Ventura County Star is a reaction to IED, the newest in personal responsibility avoidance – this one a medical excuse for what most of us call road rage.

As always, your response is encouraged. The exchange of ideas has been terrific and I continue to learn a tremendous amount from those kind enough to read (the column or this blog) and react. Thank you.

Unorthodox cure works

Scott Harris

Ventura County Star
June 25, 2006

The geniuses at Harvard Medical School, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, studied 9,000 people and have come up with a new name for what is commonly known as road rage – Intermittent Explosive Disorder or IED. They estimate that 16 million people nationwide are afflicted with IED, or what our mothers used to call rudeness or bad temper. On average, those afflicted with IED can expect to fly into a rage 43 times in their lifetime (usually beginning around age 14) and will cause $1,300 damage to other people’s personal property.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Emil Cocaro, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Chicago and one the enablers / authors of this report, dismisses the idea that the formerly termed “road rage” is simply an inexcusable outburst, insisting “ […] that there’s a biology and cognitive science to this.” Even less surprising, but more concerning, is that Dr. Cocaro says the symptoms can be treated with anti-depressants or anger-management therapy.

IED is simply the latest in a series of bad personal decisions and poor behaviors that are now deemed involuntary conditions or official diseases. Are you too fat, too skinny, a pedophile, sleeping around, or beating your spouse? Not to worry. Somewhere in America, right now, a group of people are working on your behalf, relieving you of responsibility for your actions and placing it on “society.”

Not to be cynical, but could there be a money motive to IED? Let’s follow the trail.

It starts with a group of researchers identifying a trait in a group of people that many of us find undesirable. They apply for a grant (the dollars begin) from the government or a group like the National Institute of Mental Health. They study thousands of people and determine yep, some folks get a little pissy on the freeways and some go further than that. Not content with passé (and unprofitable) terms such as “bad behavior” or “character flaw,” they attach a medical name to the acts. Now we really have some traction …

We’ll need physicians who specialize in IED, enriching doctors to diagnose and treat a previously nonexistent illness, furthering the IED money train. Health insurance will be required to cover it (explain to me again why insurance costs are so high?) Pharmaceutical companies will develop new wonder drugs, which doctors will prescribe and pharmacists will sell. It will quickly be categorized as a disability, which will bring in the ADA and the full weight and expense of federal bureaucracy

And, we’re not done yet. A community of advocacy groups and lobbyists, smelling money and publicity and usually led by the ACLU, will materialize around this new disenfranchised group of “road ragers.” Spokespeople will show up on the weekend talk shows, discussing how difficult their lives are and how insensitive the rest of us are for not acknowledging the burden they carry – as they endanger lives of drivers everywhere. And now for the topper: attorneys will have a new way to get their clients off. “Yes your honor, my client acknowledges running the Johnson family off the road, killing three innocent people. However, he is afflicted with IED and not responsible for his actions. As a matter of fact, my client is a party to my class action suit against the federal government which refuses to properly fund IED research.”

Uh, oh. Now I’m coming down with a brand new malady: disorder avoidance syndrome, a severe reaction to the ridiculous trend of labeling every human weakness, character flaw and bad personality trait as a disease. When I used to be “well,” I actually believed that it was our duty as adults to overcome negative and destructive impulses and to teach our children to do the same.

There is a radical cure for disorder avoidance syndrome – personal responsibility. It’s not recognized by the ADA, understood by the government, administered by doctors, cured by drugs, supported by the ACLU, allowed as a defense by judges, or taught in public schools. However, if you have a chance – take a dose.

Scott Harris, of Thousand Oaks, is executive director of Golden Again, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded to Bring Accountability to Sacramento. Scott can be reached at scott@goldenagain.com. His blog can be seen at blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/scottharris/ and starting July 29th you can also hear Scott every Saturday, 3:00 on KVTA 1520 AM and KKZZ 1590 AM.

Posted by sharris at 02:01 AM

Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 23, 2006

Our representative democracy

Representative democracy is a form of government in which citizens, through an election process, delegate authority to elected representatives. This differs from a direct democracy, where the people as whole, by a simple majority, make the decisions. In a country the size of the United States (almost 300 million people) and a state the size of California (38 million people), this is an impractical option and even if it were possible, it leads to mob mentalities and decisions of passion, not reason. For these reasons and others, the Founding Fathers wisely gave us representative democracy, which we use at the federal, state and local levels.

The idea is that the people we elect will serve not as our proxies, but in our best interests. In the case of California Assembly members, they represent the best interests of approximately 500,000 people – making it impossible to make each of us happy on every issue.

Removing cynicism (personal goals, donor influence, party loyalty, etc.) from the equation, their responsibility to is to make the decisions they believe are in the best interest of the majority of their constituents, without hurting the minority. They need to balance short and long-term interests, as well as fiscal responsibilities.

In California, polls show we are dissatisfied with our representatives (roughly 75% of us believe they are not doing a good job) and our system for electing them. This gives us two options, repair the system, so that we feel better represented by our elected officials (redistricting, open primaries, etc.) or continue to circumvent the system (ballot initiatives, term limits, etc.).

I plan on writing a column on this issue and would welcome your feedback and ideas regarding representative democracy, repairing the system and/or circumventing the system. Your views on this issue are important as I try to better understand what the people of California are looking for. Consider it our own version of representative democracy, except I wasn’t elected☺

Posted by sharris at 06:41 AM

June 22, 2006

110 Degrees!

I am sitting in Las Vegas at 10:30 at night, hoping the temperature drops to under 100 degrees. It reached 110 degrees during the day today and is expected to be the same through the weekend.

I simply want to go on record as saying that no matter how backed up California traffic is, how outrageously expensive our housing becomes or what my workers comp rates get bumped to – I will not be leaving California for Las Vegas.

I’m wondering if the Nevada Chamber reps who keep telling me “it’s a dry heat” know that an oven is a dry heat as well.

BTW – My all-time favorite John Fogerty song is an old southern blues song – 110 In the Shade. Maybe he wrote it while visiting Vegas.

Posted by sharris at 10:29 PM

June 21, 2006

Death penalty?

Anna Quindlen, writing in the June 26 issue of Newsweek , labels capital punishment “The Failed Experiment”. She trots out the standard missives against capital punishment.

First – we are one of the few countries that kill people to make clear what a terrible thing killing people is. This is a variation of the frequently heard “state sponsored murder” argument.

Equating capital punishment with murder is the same as equating imprisonment with kidnapping, or a fine with stealing. The inability to see the difference between murder and capital punishment is a direct result of moral relativism - a belief that morality is culturally based, subject to a person's individual choice and with no absolutes.

The second argument presented by Ms. Quindlen against capital punishment is that innocent people are sometime wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. While there is no known case in the United States of an innocent person being put to death, it is not unreasonable to think it might happen. There would be nothing more terrible and every day we take significant steps forward (DNA tests, etc.) to ensure that does not happen.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that punishments are designed to punish the guilty, not protect the innocent. The idea that the punishment should not be too severe because some innocent people may be hurt is ultimately a ridiculous one. If carried through to it’s illogical conclusion, no convicted criminal should ever be punished, because what sentence would be fair for an innocent person?

In the end, either we believe in punishing people found guilty of crimes, or we don’t, knowing full well that our system is imperfect and occasionally an innocent person will be wrongly convicted and sentenced.

The only valid reason for questioning the death penalty is a moral one. Regardless of your personal point of view, there are very compelling reasons from the other side of discussion. Good, moral people can fall on either side of this debate.

As a nation, either we believe innocent life is so precious that those who wantonly destroy it forfeit their lives in exchange, or we don’t. It’s that simple.

Posted by sharris at 07:56 PM

June 20, 2006

Affordable housing

Among the many challenges that Californians face, affordable housing has to be close to the top of the list. In a continuing effort to bring you information and ideas from the best and the brightest, please take a look at a new op-ed article from Mary Kaiser, president of Glendale based, California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC). Entitled “In Love with the Problem,” Mary gives a candid and informed assessment of our continuing inability to solve California’s housing issues.

In Love with the Problem
An industry expert admits there is too much talk and not enough action when it comes to solving California’s housing crisis
by Mary Kaiser

We’re all in love with the problem.

One of the things I do for a living is speak at conferences about the availability or more accurately, the lack of affordable housing. My speeches inevitably dwell on negatives, because when the cost of California housing forces young people, first-time home buyers and moderate income earners out of the markets, bad things happen.

Our roads are clogged with commuters who “drive ‘til they qualify.” That’s bad for our transportation infrastructure and causes employees to live so far from work that they are on the road instead of participating in their home communities or finding time to better contribute to their business communities. In a particularly dire example, firemen, policemen and teachers can’t afford to live in the communities they serve, making it harder to summon them to work when their departments or schools are short-handed.

Our employers can’t recruit employees at numerous salary levels due to the lack of affordable housing. The employee base dries up and employers leave the state to establish their businesses where they have the talent base to run successful companies. Businesses that can’t leave, like hospitals, universities, police and fire departments, accept workers living 100 miles away, subsidize housing closer to the workplace, or overpay relative to competition to attract good employees.

As they grow up, our own children can’t afford to live in the communities where they were raised, so they either never leave home or if they do, they move to Texas, Idaho, the Carolinas—anywhere they can get a good job, buy a home and raise a family

I’ve been in finance and housing for a long time, and I give a good speech. I get the heads nodding, but while I increase the population of the choir, the problem still grows. I finally figured out why. While we are acutely aware of the problem, most of the folks who hear my speeches or come to my house for dinner have dodged the bullet. We are homeowners in California sitting on gold in these thar hills: equity in our homes. We know there is a problem, but it doesn’t affect us, at least not yet. We will talk about the affordable housing crisis endlessly. Like I said, we all seem to be in love with the issue and we can speak eloquently on their ramifications. We acknowledge it and bemoan it, do some armchair quarterbacking, then we leave the conference hall or the dining room. Nothing has changed.

How do we get from being in love with the problem to fixing it? Start by showing everyone, especially those with homes and equity, how it will hit the pocketbook. For example, I don’t want my kids moving out of state, because I want to be one of the grandmas who spoils their grandkids rotten, then sends them home. If they live in Texas, it won’t be so easy to be part of their growing up. I could cash out and move to Texas, but there are Texans living there. I’m a Californian, and a liberal one at that, and I like this place.

So, if I stay, and the state goes to hell in a hand basket, I face a housing problem as the middle class erodes, gaps widen between the haves and the have-nots, and the roads and schools crumble. My property value will eventually drop with the quality of life, and I will have lost out on the gold in them thar hills. With the danger signs all around, coffee tables in nice homes have become contingency planning centers. There you will see the books featuring the rolling hills in North Carolina, the lake towns in Texas, as well as tips on cooking good barbeque and tolerating humidity. Is the “great weather” in California enough to offset the growing list of negatives? I don’t think so.

If I accept that the sky isn’t falling and I stay, what can I do to be part of the solution? And do I like the solution? Do I think it is a good idea that people of all incomes can afford to live in the state, close enough to their jobs to stop spending the best years of their lives on the freeway? Do I think it is a good idea that businesses can find the talent they need to stay and prosper in California? Do I really believe that changes in housing will bring changes in our classrooms? Would we then feel secure in upholding high school exit exams designed to confirm learning standards? Would the dominos keep falling and future generations actually be able to compete in a global marketplace? Maybe then local bonds would be passed by voters reassured that spending money on the school system is a good investment. For the first time in my life, I voted “no” on a local school bond issue because I didn’t think they would spend the money wisely.

So, if we want to stay, and we want our kids and our businesses to stay, what should each of us be doing to fall in love with the solution, not the problem of affordable housing? I’m tired of having lunch with friends, going to conferences, or just talking with co-workers about this problem. So what if we can identify it? So what if we can quote affordability indexes or homeownership rates that are the lowest in the country? So what? I’m starting to sound like my parents who complained about everything when they got older, wishing for the good old days.

Let’s all commit to being part of the solution. Don’t give up on the issue and just hang around quietly. Don’t leave if you don’t want to. Don’t rack up frequent flyer miles visiting your kids and grandkids in those states where the humidity exceeds the temperature. Stay and fight for this great place we currently call home.

Mary Kaiser is president of California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC), a nonprofit lending consortium that has approved more than $736 million in affordable housing loans and made 23,000 housing units available to California residents.

Posted by sharris at 10:23 PM

Voices of Reform

The people of California seem quite willing and able to reach agreement – at least on the subject of disappointment in their elected officials. Regular readers of my column know that I support election reform, beginning with redistricting, but also including open primaries and extending or ending term limits.

True representative democracy results from informed voters selecting quality representatives and those representatives in turn being directly responsible – first and foremost - to their constituents.

There are a number of organizations in the state working toward these goals and I want to highlight one of them today, the Commonwealth Club and their Voices of Reform Project. VoR is headed up by the very energetic and impressive Zabrae Valentine.

While a visit to their website is the best way to learn more about the work they are doing and how you might get involved, this note from their site gives you an excellent idea of what they are about.

Voices of Reform seeks to foster probing discussions of key governance reform issues, make these discussions available to a broad range of people throughout the state, and encourage opinion leaders in this state to actively pursue promising reforms.

Posted by sharris at 07:34 PM

June 19, 2006

Working together – great news!

A couple of news items came out over the weekend. Neither is earthshaking and unless you immerse yourself in politics, they may very well have slipped by unnoticed. However, I think both items are quite positive and in the best of all worlds, give some hope for the future.

ITEM #1 – Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has so far declined to endorse Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for Governor. While it is quite probable that Mayor Villaraigosa will eventually lend his support to the Democratic gubernatorial candidate and highly unlikely that he would consider supporting Governor Schwarzenegger in his reelection bid, his current neutrality speaks volumes.

The Mayor is working closely with the Governor on his proposed takeover of the LAUSD, a position different than that of Mr. Angelides, who is closely aligned with the California Teachers Association, who, not surprisingly, do not support the proposed change.

The bottom line is that the Democratic mayor of our states largest city is working closely with our Republican Governor in an effort to try and achieve something to the benefit of their shared constituents. This smacks of constituents first and politics second.

ITEM #2 – Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez is raising money (this part is not the surprise) for his Committee to Protect California’s Future, a group focused on helping to pass ballot initiatives in November.

Included in these initiatives is the bipartisan (dare I say non-partisan) $47 billion dollar, five-measure infrastructure package.

Taken together, these are perhaps the early seeds of our elected officials beginning to work together. Partisanship is not always bad and certainly some future votes will fall right down party lines. However, if at least every once in while, we can have this kind of cooperation, it will be a significant step toward making our state great again. Kudos to all!

Posted by sharris at 11:04 PM

June 18, 2006

English only?

The battle over legally establishing English as the official language of the United States is heating up. From the left, the arguments against it range from the predictable, pejorative and inflammatory calls of racism to the more subtle position of “why bother, it’s already the default official language.” This second stance is highlighted in Gregory Rodriguez’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, June 18, 2006). Mr. Rodriguez (a senior fellow at the New American Foundation) argues that because English is the dominant language in the country and is predicted to become more pervasive here and around the world, that there is no need to codify its position within the United States.

This argument ignores the legal inroads already made by non-English speaking people the United States. Ballots, courtrooms, police officers and numerous other public services are now required to meet the needs of those who have chosen to not learn English. This shifts the burden from non-English speaking residents to the government and has advanced rapidly from accommodating “major” languages—most prominently Spanish—to requiring courts to provide translators for virtually all languages and dialects spoken, no matter how obscure. Beyond the financial and administrative burdens of such a policy, it signifies another step away from what used to be our greatest asset as a nation – being a melting pot. This issue – melting pot vs. tossed salad - is also addressed by Mr. Rodriguez.

The real problem with Mr. Rodriguez’s argument against codifying English’s de facto status as our official language, is that the status is far from being clear or permanent. Similar arguments were made in the early stages of establishing and maintaining a legal definition for marriage. Why bother? It has always been the standard and will always remain. The problem is that it is not true. Those who support “traditional marriage” are now belittled as radicals by the press, and it won’t be too many years before the barriers to same sex marriage are removed. While those who support same sex marriage deny the obvious, once the initial barriers are down, all bets are off. How can you deny marriage “rights” to polygamists, cousins, even what are now considered under age? All those who want to bend or break the rules for marriage subscribe to the same arguments.

Having no standards is a problem we must face as a nation. Because so many in our country view standards as unfairly limiting, racist or some form of phobia, those who support standards must be heard, be counted and be active in converting these reasonable yet unwritten societal guidelines into law.

Posted by sharris at 12:47 PM

June 17, 2006

Howard Berman shows character

Today’s Los Angeles Daily News has an article about Democratic Congressman Howard Berman (California 28th) voting to support yesterdays Republican backed non-binding resolution rejecting the setting of a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Regardless of your views on the Iraq war, the President and troop withdrawal, Mr. Berman should be applauded for his courage. He was one of only 42 Democrats nationwide to support the resolution and knew in advance that when he voted yes, he would incur the wrath of party fanatics.

This is an example of a man who is a leader (rare among today’s politicians), willing to vote his mind and not simply follow the “party line”. We need more men and women like this – from both parties. Mr. Berman, thank you for your character, your leadership and the example you have set for others.

Posted by sharris at 08:53 AM

Johnny Johnston

Today’s Ventura County Star has an article about a proposed raise for Johnny Johnston, our county CEO. The raise of almost 6% would bring Mr. Johnston’s salary to $234,900.

Mr. Johnston manages a budget of $1.5 billion dollars and oversees 7,000 employees, running the state’s 11th largest county. While that is a huge responsibility, the raise is only justified by results, not the size of the challenge, or even effort.

Mr. Johnston has been a calm and steadying influence during difficult times, knitting together the various and oftentimes competing county interests, working with a board that can frequently be challenging and balancing current needs with our responsibility to the future.

While it is impossible to have a budget that satisfies every person and every special interest, it is certainly worth noting the relative ease (take a look at Sacramento and their continued failure to bring in a budget on time and without petty partisan bickering) with which our budget was passed last week.

It is my opinion that the results have been excellent, that Mr. Johnston is doing a great job and that the raise is justified and should be approved.

Posted by sharris at 08:07 AM

June 14, 2006

Great Americans - Jonas Salk

Today is the third in a series of short essays on Great Americans. Jonas Salk is best known for his work in developing the polio vaccine.

In researching his life and his work, I discovered that Dr. Salk refused to patent his discovery, believing that it would reach more people more quickly if he didn’t. I was also unaware of the controversy surrounding his work and that followed him until his death.

I hope you enjoy the essay.

Jonas Salk, M.D. – Developer of the Polio Vaccine

Scott Harris

Jonas Salk was born in New York City, October 28, 1914, the son of Russian-Jewish immigrants. He was the first member of his family to attend college and started his education at City College of New York, studying law, but he soon found a passion for biology and chemistry and instead graduated in 1939 from the New York University College of Medicine. As part of his studies, he spent a year with microbiologist Thomas Francis, Jr. working on a vaccine for influenza, a disease that killed millions worldwide following World War I. Salk later applied the knowledge he gained during this time to the problem of polio.

In 1947, he headed the Virus Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh and started his search for a polio vaccine. While for most of us polio is a distant memory, more than 57,000 cases were recorded in the United States during 1952. Building on the work and research of others, Salk developed a vaccine that year which he tested on a group of volunteers, including his wife, his three sons and himself. The tests proved successful and in 1953 he published his findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association. On April 12, 1955, the results were made public and Jonas Salk, primarily through efforts of the March of Dimes, (and to the lasting consternation of many of his peers), achieved worldwide fame. More importantly, by 1962, national polio cases had dropped to 910, and by 1969 there was not a single recorded case of polio in the country. It was Thomas Francis, Jr., Salk’s mentor during the influenza research days, who directed the mass vaccination of our nation’s schoolchildren. Salk’s vaccine eventually gave way to an oral variation developed by Albert Sabin.

While developing the vaccine speaks to his brilliance as a researcher, his refusal to patent the discovery, waiving all personal profits and allowing the vaccine to be quickly distributed worldwide, speaks to his character.

In 1963, Salk, sadly still alienated from many of his peers, founded the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in part because as he said himself, “I couldn’t possibly have become a member of this institute if I hadn’t founded it myself,”

In 1976, he was awarded the J. Nehru award for international understanding and the Humanist of the Year award. The following year, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

His published books include Man Unfolding (1972), The Survival of the Wisest (1973), World Population and Human Values: A New Reality (1981) and Anatomy of Reality (1983).

Salk died June 23, 1995 at the age of 80, still working to find an AIDS vaccine. Research continues today at the Institute he founded, inspired by the life he led.

Hope lies in dreams and in the courage of those who dare to make dreams a reality.

Jonas Salk

Posted by sharris at 07:17 AM

June 13, 2006

Winston Churchill

It is my opinion that Winston Churchill is one of the, if not the, greatest man of the past century. It can certainly be argued that without Churchill, there would have been no stopping Hitler.

Jack Kemp wrote a terrific essay yesterday, highlighting many of Churchill’s accomplishments and reminding us of what it means to stand alone against evil in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

He also highlights a new book "The Spirit of Churchill," by author Deborah Brezina that according to Kemp, “heralds a stirring call to this present generation to reclaim the noble heritage of those who preserved our freedom.”

I recommend the essay and look forward to reading the book.

Posted by sharris at 09:20 AM

June 12, 2006

Great Americans - Clara Barton

As discussed in my June 10th entry, I'm participating in the development of a book on Great Americans. I plan to share them with you as they are written and look forward to your suggestions as to who should make the final list.

Today’s essay is on Clara Barton, a remarkable woman and a remarkable American. Best known for founding the Red Cross in the United States, she did so much more, as you’ll learn by reading the essay. Enjoy!

Clara Barton – Founder of the American Red Cross

Scott Harris

Clara Harlowe Barton was born in Oxford, Mass, 1821, on perhaps the most fitting of all days – Christmas. Until her death in 1912, she led one of the most inspiring, generous and remarkable lives in American history.

Beginning at age 11 and lasting two years, she cared for her brother David, who had been injured in an accident. At age 15 she started a long teaching career, highlighted in 1852 when she established the first free-of-charge, public school in New Jersey. She moved to Washington D.C. in 1854 and led a quiet life for the next seven years.

In 1861, during the Civil War, the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment arrived in Washington D.C., without their baggage. Clara led a successful local effort to bring them provisions. When she learned that the soldiers from the battle of Bull Run lacked medical supplies, she took out an ad in the Worcester, Massachusetts, Spy asking for assistance. The response was tremendous, and she established a system to distribute contributed items. Word of her work reached U.S. Surgeon General William Hammond who granted her a special pass to travel with the army ambulances “for the purpose of distributing comforts for the sick and wounded, and nursing them.” For her efforts, she became known as “The Angel of the Battlefield.”

Following the Civil War she led a federal effort to search for missing soldiers. During those same years, she met and worked with Susan B. Anthony as part of the suffrage movement and assisted Frederick Douglass with his efforts as a black activist.

By 1869 she had suffered a breakdown and left for Europe to rest and recover. However, instead of disappearing into her own recuperation, she became involved with the International Committee of the Red Cross and traveled to the front of the Franco-Prussian conflict. For her efforts, the German Emperor awarded her Iron Cross of Merit.

She returned to the United States and founded the American Association of the Red Cross in 1881 and played a crucial role in convincing President Arthur to sign the Geneva Treaty in 1882.

She served as President of the Red Cross for 23 years, until her retirement in 1904. In 1898 at age 77, she traveled to Cuba to deliver supplies during the Spanish-American War, and in 1900, she spent six weeks in relief efforts following the Galveston, Texas, hurricane, one of the worst natural disasters in American history.

She was hard working, resourceful and completely devoted to the cause of helping those in need. The mission she started continues today throughout the country. As the Detroit Free Press said upon her death in 1912: “She was perhaps the most perfect incarnation of mercy the modern world has known.”

You must never so much as think whether you like it or not, whether it is bearable or not, you must never think of anything except the need, and how to meet it.

Clara Barton

Posted by sharris at 11:45 AM

June 11, 2006

3rd Party?

My column today in the Ventura County Star has already generated quite a few responses. Almost all of them have been thoughtful, offering support for some of the ideas in the column, or alternatives that should be considered.

Since the goal of my work and Golden Again is to promote discussion, leading to change, this is rewarding and invigorating.

This past Wednesday, I spoke to approximately 100 people at an excellent Oxnard Chamber event. It is a speech, with variations, that I have given before. However, the response this time was different than it has been in the past. There was no defensiveness from either liberals or conservatives. There were quite a few questions, suggestions were made, ideas offered and actual dialog took place.

These are small, but significant, steps. The more people who are talking, listening, thinking and evaluating – the better chance of making significant and positive changes.

Posted by sharris at 05:39 PM

June 10, 2006

Great Americans – John Adams

Working with a group of friends, and as an outgrowth of frequent discussions and debate, we have begun work on a book – Great Americans, 1776 to 2000. While the final definition of “Great”, is still in progress (please email your suggestions) it will almost certainly include those, who through their contributions in politics, military, spiritual, entertainment, industry, sports, discovery and research changed the course of the country, for the better.

Each essay will be approximately 500 words and when we have selected and written the 200, we’ll publish the effort as a coffee table book. Your suggestions for inclusion in the book are certainly welcome. The first of these essays is included here, one of our Founding Fathers, John Adams.

John Adams – Founding Father and 2nd President.

Born in 1735 in Braintree, Massachusetts, John Adams was our nation’s second president, our first vice president (under George Washington) a Harvard graduate, a founding member of the Federalist Party, Ambassador to France, U.S. Minister to the British Court, a member of the Massachusetts Assembly, a framer of the Massachusetts state constitution, and the only Founding Father who never owned slaves.

However, John Adams’ place in history will always be defined by his role in the American Revolution. From the beginning, Adams role was central – and indispensable – to the ultimate success of the Revolution.

His involvement with the Revolution began with his opposition to the Stamp Act expressed in writings for the Boston Gazette that were later republished in England as “A Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law.” He represented Massachusetts at the First Continental Congress in 1774 and returned in 1775 to the Second Continental Congress, where he nominated George Washington to be commander-in-chief. Adams sat on upwards of 90 committees, chairing twenty-five of them. In 1781, he helped negotiate the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, ending the Revolutionary War.

The low point of Adams long and distinguished career was the 1798 passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were an overreaction to the threat of war with France (which Adams was able to avert) and a transparent effort to muzzle Thomas Jefferson’s opposing Republican Party by controlling the press.

Much of Adams’ power and resilience came from his wife Abigail, a strong, brilliant woman. She provided strength when needed, support when required and insight often. She was sometimes referred to as the nation’s Founding Mother.

Perhaps the most complex of all Founding Fathers’ relationships was that between Adams and Jefferson. While Jefferson’s writing will be captured forever in the Declaration of Independence (an opportunity that Adams declined so that he could stay active on the floor), it has been said that the voice of the Revolution was Adams, whose impassioned speeches at the Continental Congresses kept us moving forward and united at a time when it was not a given that we would strive for independence.
Jefferson served as Adams’ vice president before defeating him in the bitter 1800 presidential election, which saw the birth of American political parties (Adams’ Federalist Party and Jefferson’s Democrat-Republican Party) and the end of a friendship that had helped create a nation.

Adams left Washington D.C. the morning of Jefferson’s inauguration and the old friends had no contact until 1812 when they began a remarkable correspondence that lasted until their deaths.

John Adams died on the Fourth of July, 1826. His final toast was “Independence Forever.” And his final words (not knowing that his old friend had died only hours earlier) are reputed to have been “Thomas Jefferson survives.”

One thing is certain: John Adams survives as well, the result of his work and devotion to his country, and we are all the better for it.

People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity.

John Adams

Posted by sharris at 01:11 PM

June 08, 2006

Voting - A Right or a Privilege?

In light of the disappointing turnout at the polls Tuesday, both statewide and right here in Ventura County, I am reminded of a column that I wrote last year. It is, unfortunately, still appropriate.

Voting – Right or a Privilege?

Published; Ventura County Star, May 29, 2005

1. How many states are in the Union?

The County of Ventura, along with six other California counties (Calaveras, Mendocino, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Sierra) is vying to be part of a test program where its elections would be conducted entirely by mail. Traditional polling places would be eliminated and voters would be required to either mail their ballots, or drop them at a designated location.

2. For how long do we elect a president?

In Oregon, where mail-in elections have been conducted since 1999, the change has been generally well received and turnout is up throughout the state. Various county and state officials in California applaud the plan as a way to make voting easier and to get more people to vote.

3. What are the colors of our flag?

In contrast, instead of simplifying the process, Australia and Belgium have taken a different road to ensuring a high turnout: compulsory voting. There are exceptions to the rule and the fines are minimal, but turnout is high and protest about the law are low.

4. What is the highest court in the United States?

Mail-in voting programs assume that it’s good to make voting easier. But is it? This January, 8 million Iraqis risked their lives to vote and we're accepting that Americans can’t be bothered to visit a polling place or even register for an absentee ballot. When we make voting too easy, its value and the desire to make an informed vote is diminished.

5. Who is the president today?

It’s time for America to take a different look at elections and change voting from a right to a privilege. I am not talking about the hateful and now-illegal barriers to voting that existed in this country, such as post-Civil War Black Codes that imposed literacy tests and poll taxes to exclude African-Americans from the voting process. I am talking about a reasonable standard applied equally across the entire population.

6. Who is the vice president today?

In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, one of the requirements is to pass a 100-question test administered by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

7. Which president freed the slaves?

As a prerequisite to voting, we could require every eligible adult to pass the same 100-question test given to those seeking citizenship. The test is basic, non-biased and easy to administer. You’ve already been reading sample questions. Turn 18, pass the test and you can vote. Your voting privileges remain intact for life unless you miss two consecutive presidential votes, which would require you to retake and pass the test.

8. Who was the first president?

In recent years, there have been movements to give children the vote (the association ASFAR), restore convicted felons voting rights (The Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act), and even permit illegal immigrants to cast ballots (measures allowing documents and undocumented noncitizens to vote in San Francisco, CA, and Takoma Park, MD). All of this is done to increase the quantity of voters. It’s time we paid attention to the quality of voters. It is not unreasonable to ask our citizens to know a bit about this country before they help decide who’s going to run it. Both parties will immediately start test-passing mills, but who cares? How is it possible for the country to be hurt if our eligible voters show some of the same civics proficiency required of our immigrants and high school seniors?

9. Who said “Give me liberty or give me death”?

Open elections are sacred and our participation in them is a privilege as much as a right. It is infuriating to see a person walk into the voting booth in November who couldn’t name the candidates before Halloween, or to know someone who creates a “one man, two vote” system by surrendering an absentee ballot to a spouse.

Is it really too much to ask that for one day, once in your adult life, you focus the workings of our nation, pass a simple test and earn the right to vote?

1. 50
2. 4 years
3. Red, white & blue
4. Supreme Court
5. George W. Bush
6. Dick Cheney
7. Abraham Lincoln
8. George Washington
9. Patrick Henry

Posted by sharris at 04:40 PM

June 07, 2006

English as the 1st language

There are a handful of columnists that I have tremendous respect for. They write columns that are thoughtful, not shrill and work to forward ideas, not ideologies. Dennis Prager and George Will are two of them. Another is Charles Krauthammer.

Charles has written an excellent essay in the June 12th edition of Time magazine on why English should be our official language. The column is logical, makes sense and looks at the issue from both sides. Enjoy.

Posted by sharris at 09:38 PM

June 06, 2006

Bumper Sticker Politics

One of the benefits (I really am a silver lining guy) to the excessive traffic found in Southern California is the chance to read and think about bumper stickers. As a marketing person, I like to see which bumper stickers are on which cars and what the drivers look like. It’s a chance to see if there is a correlation between car, driver and sticker.

This is also an opportunity to wonder about the some of the bumper stickers that are frequently seen.

Bush is not my President

This is my favorite. It appears to be a way of identifying foreigners, in which case President Bush would actually not be their president, or the ignorant. I have news for all American citizens, even the bluest of Bush haters – George W. Bush is your president – elected by the American people not once, but twice. If you hold onto the stickers until 2008, when President Bush is termed out, then your bumper sticker will be right. However, just your luck if Florida Governor Jeb Bush runs and wins, then once again, your bumper sticker will be just plain wrong.

War is not the answer

Maybe war is not the best answer, but on occasion – war is the answer – the only and best answer. While rational people can argue that attacking Iraq was a mistake, was attacking Afghanistan, was defending Kuwait in the Gulf War a mistake? What would you have suggested after December 7th,1941(Pearl Harbor day)– a United Nations Resolution, or better yet, a series of them? Was it a bad idea to save Western Europe and very probably ourselves by entering WWI? How about our own American Revolution? After all peaceful means were exhausted, would you have gone to war, or given up?

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder

The inability to see the difference between the two is frightening. Is jail state sponsored kidnapping? Do you not see the difference between a criminal act and an act of punishment? Are income taxes state sponsored stealing? Ok, maybe I’ll give them this one☺

And for the funniest and most universal of all….

Run Hillary Run

This works for both liberals, who put it on the back bumper and conservatives, who put it on the front bumper.

If you have any additional bumper stickers you would like to share, just drop me an email.

Posted by sharris at 08:07 PM

June 05, 2006

Ridiculous judges #1

Nebraska Judge Kristine Cecava sentenced a convicted child molester to 10 years of probation, instead of 10 years in prison, because she felt that at 5foot1, Richard W. Thompson might not fare well in prison. The glib answer and honest reaction is – who cares?

Judge Cecava apparently overlooked the fact that while Mr. Thompson is a very small man, it has nothing to do with his height. He was certainly tall enough to sexually assault a 12-year-old girl. I wish that Judge Cecava and the state of Nebraska were as concerned about the safety of innocent 12 year old girls as they are with the safety of convicted felons.

Beyond the obvious insensitivity and cruelty to the young girl and her family and the stupidity of worrying more about the welfare of a convicted child molester than that of the community, Judge Cecava has set a very dangerous precedent. Every convicted criminal in Nebraska will have their attorney explaining all of the reasons that jail isn’t safe for their poor little convicted criminal – race, gangs, age, size, religion, etc.

Candidly, I don’t think jails should be a country club. While the “Bubba” jokes are all said with a snicker, fear of what might happen in jail is one effective method for keeping people from committing crimes.

I have actually numbered this entry, because painfully, I’m afraid there won’t be a shortage of entry opportunities. If you have an example of a ridiculous judge, please send it to me and if it’s verifiable, I’ll run it.

Posted by sharris at 12:38 PM

June 04, 2006

Two parties?

Today the Los Angeles Times used one of their two editorials to announce that, for the first time since 1972 (Richard Nixon, which should come as a surprise to many), they’ll be endorsing a presidential candidate in 2008.

There are those who believe that Times leans slightly to the left with its’ editorials and would be surprised if the Times saw its way clear to endorse a Republican, should one be so deserving.

Two years is a long ways away, especially in the ever changing world of politics. However, it is worth noting – and it’s not surprising – that in their lead editorial today the Times endorsed four statewide candidates – all Democrats.

Posted by sharris at 02:26 PM

June 03, 2006

UC’s need to look at all options

Today’s Los Angeles Times (front page) has a lengthy article focusing on the “problem” of blacks being underrepresented at UCLA and within the UC system in general. Predictably, student protests are taking place, Chancellor Albert Carnesale has promised to redouble UCLA’s efforts and the Times let us know that “the socioeconomic inequities that undermine elementary and high school education in California and elsewhere, with minority students disproportionately affected because they often attend schools with fewer resources, including less-qualified teachers and fewer counselors.”

The article continues, discussing the underrepresented minorities - black, Latino and Native American.

Three things that I would have liked to see the Times analyze, or address in any way, are the following….

1. The impact on whites and Asians who live in areas “with fewer resources, including less-qualified teachers and fewer counselors.” There are certainly quite a few poor whites in California and it seems that it might be worth looking at the challenges they face and their representation within the UC system. Perhaps the issue is income and not ethnicity.

2. The possibility that some of the problems might be cultural. While Bill Cosby has been crucified for addressing this issue, doesn’t it at least justify exploration?

3. Let’s also take a look at another minority – Asians. They’re never brought up in this discussion, because their results do not fit the “minority” mold. However, maybe we should take a look at a group that makes up 4% of the nations population, but 36% of the UC student population, surpassing incoming white freshman for the first time ever in 2006.

47% of Asians who graduate from a California high school apply to a UC and fully 1/3 meet the requirements. This compares to 14% of whites who apply and 13% who qualify.

While it is almost certain that poverty and bad schools play a role in minorities attending, or not attending, our UC’s, it is certainly worth exploring the impact of poverty on whites and how at least one minority – Asians – has done a remarkable job.

If we’re going to look at this as a problem, let’s look at all possible reasons and all possible solutions. Anything else is disingenuous.

Posted by sharris at 05:39 PM

June 02, 2006

Star editorial fails exit exam

The Star’s June 1st editorial endorses Jack O’Connell and recommends giving him a second term as California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

This, in spite of the fact that they disagree with the Superintendents position of denying high school diplomas to those students who did not earn them, repeating concerns previously stated in their May 10th editorial.

The Star is concerned that “… 47,000 high school students who faithfully attended school and passed all required courses will not graduate this year because they failed the exam.”

What the Star should be concerned with is how 47,000 students were able to pass their math and English classes and were promoted year after year, but yet are unable to earn a high F on a middle school math test (55% at an 8th grade level is required to pass), or a low D (60%) on a 10th grade English test.

What the Star should be asking is – what will these kids do with their diploma once they graduate? They are not prepared to attend college at any level and are at best prepared to hold low-level entry positions. These students will be better served in the long run by investing the time and effort required to earn a degree they can be proud of and that will be of value to them.

For more on my views on the High School Exit Exam, please see my May 14th column.

As always, your feedback and thoughts are welcomed and encouraged. Thank you.

Posted by sharris at 01:53 AM

June 01, 2006

First Day

Welcome to my blog and thank you for taking the time to visit. I welcome the opportunity to share ideas, opinions and thoughts with you on a regular basis. I am also looking forward to your feedback. The best way for awareness to continue growing and ideas to keep evolving is to listen to as many people as possible. This terrific forum lets me hear you “loud and clear.”

California has no shortages of challenges and more importantly, no shortage of opportunities. We are the greatest and most vital state in the greatest and most vital nation in the world – hence the name of this site, “The Alpha State.”

I have tremendous confidence in the people of California and in our future. You will hear me expressing that confidence while discussing problems and solutions in my speaking engagements (next scheduled is Thursday June 8th at the Oxnard Chamber’s Good Morning Oxnard) and during my new radio show on KVTA and KKZZ. In addition to reading and responding to this blog, you can read my upcoming book, California: The Alpha State (scheduled to be released in 2007) and follow my regular Ventura County Star column.

Please click “continue reading” below to learn more about why California is The Alpha State.

California’s economic influence, good and bad, cannot be ignored nationally or internationally. Simply put, the United States is the most important economic force in the world and California is the most important economic force in the country. Where California goes, the nation and ultimately the world follow. This is why California is The Alpha State.

Consider the following….

38 million people, 1 out of every 8 Americans, lives in California.

By the year 2020 the population will be 48 million.

1 of 4 Californians was born out of the country.

Los Angeles County alone, with a population of over 10,000,000, is larger than 44 states.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has a student population greater than the total population of 4 states.

55 companies in the Fortune 500 call California home.

The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland control 42% of the nation’s containers.

California is the national leader in technology, agriculture, ranching, manufacturing and entertainment.

Our statewide economy is $1.5 trillion, dwarfing every other state and representing 14% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

If we stood alone, California’s economy would be the 6th largest in the world, trailing only the United States, Japan, Germany, China and the United Kingdom.

Our agricultural sector is the nation’s largest, accounting for 75% of the nation’s lettuce, 82% of the strawberries, 92% of the grapes and 99% of the almonds.

Our 53 members of the House of Representatives are by far the largest delegation, constituting 12% of the nation’s total.

Our state budget is well over $100 billion, far more than any other state.

Future blogs will address some of the challenges and problems and most importantly, examine and discuss potential solutions. However, for today, let’s simply agree that California is an amazing place to live, work and raise our families. Please let me know your thoughts.

Posted by sharris at 01:00 PM