Driver's license bill vetoed

Star editorial / Peter Foy

The Ventura County Star ran an editorial Thursday, encouraging conservative Republican Peter Foy, candidate for 4th District supervisor in Ventura County to reconsider his position of refusing to debate his opponent liberal Democrat Jim Dantona.

Mr. Foy’s response was that he did not consider the League of Women Voters to be an unbiased forum. I know that Mr. Foy has declined at least one other opportunity for what most definitely would have been a setting not unfavorable to him, so this seems disingenuous at best.

What this is really about is the fact that Mr. Foy is taking victory for granted because he is a conservative in a conservative district. As a candidate, he believes he has nowhere to go but down and nothing to gain by debating Mr. Dantona. That may be an excellent campaign strategy and he is certainly the odds on favorite to win the seat.

However, it is an act of cowardice and certainly not what any of us, regardless of party, want from our leaders. The Star has offered to host a debate between these two candidates and I hope that Mr. Foy accepts the challenge. If he does and handles himself reasonable well, the odds are that he will run away with the election. However, should he come up with another excuse for avoiding the opportunity to allow us to see him debate his opponent, I hope the good people of the 4th District have the sense to not elect him. Say what you will about ousted supervisor Judy Mikels or the campaign tactics of Mr. Dantona – neither can be accused of running and hiding.

As citizens, as voters, we need to begin to demand accountability and visibility from our elected officials. While a supervisory race in a medium size county may not change the state, it could be a start.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 29, 2006

20,000 reasons to attack

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader, speaking publicly for the first time since Israel withdrew, acknowledged that his group of terrorists now has more than 20,000 rockets….

“We haven’t even begun rearming”

For those whose heads are buried in Arab sand, Israel did not overreact, the response was not disproportionate and if anything, they quit early and before the job was done. We, along with Israel, are under attack from a group of people who do not understand compassion or human decency and will stop at nothing until their stated goal – our destruction - is achieved.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

7-Eleven dumps Citgo / Chavez

Citgo Petroleum Corp, the Venezuelan oil company controlled by American hating Hugo Chavez lost the $2 billion dollar 7-Eleven account this week. While 7-Eleven publicly denies that politics – and specifically Chavez’s United Nations rant – played a role in their decision, I would like to think otherwise. Congratulations to Tower Energy, an American company, who picked up the massive contract to supply more than 1,800 7-Elevens with gas.

It is my hope that those countries that stand against the United States will begin to feel increasingly severe repercussions for their actions. I applaud 7-Eleven for their decision and hope that many others follow!

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 28, 2006

Ignorance is bliss?

A reader and a friend sent me a long report – the summary of which can read by clicking "Continue reading" below.

As regular readers of this blog know, I am a much bigger advocate for informed voters (quality) than simply more (quantity) voters. If this report is true, they are going to get harder and harder to find.

The title alone - The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions – should be enough to send teachers and parents screaming into the night. More than once I have suggested that voting should be an earned privilege, not an entitlement (all “Scott you’re an elitist” emails welcome) and this report and others like it are a big part of the reason why.

How can we expect the ignorant to make educated choices? Those who do not understand where this country came from are going to have an extraordinary time helping determine where it should go. All those in favor of adding United States History to the high school exit exam, raise your hand on keep on voting!

Or, as my friend said....

If we depend on an informed citizenry to make this democracy work, the future looks bleak…

Today's college students, our nation's future leaders, must understand their nation's history and founding principles if they are to be informed and engaged citizens. They need to understand not only the fundamental institutions and ideals that defined the American founding, but also the more than two centuries of debate and struggle through which Americans have worked out their unique identity as a people. In addition, in this post-9/11 era, it is increasingly necessary that students understand America's relationship to the rest of the world.

The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions presents scientific evidence that, for the very first time, reveals how much American colleges and universities—including some of our most elite schools—add to, or subtract from, their graduates' understanding of America's history and fundamental institutions. Commissioned by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), the present study represents the culmination of a multiyear research process involving a team of professors experienced in the classroom, ISI's National Civic Literacy Board, and the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy.

In the fall of 2005, the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy (UConnDPP) was contracted by ISI to undertake the largest statistically valid survey ever conducted to determine what colleges and universities are teaching their students about America's history and institutions. UConnDPP asked more than 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities across the country 60 multiple-choice questions in order to measure their knowledge in four subject areas: (1) American history; (2) government; (3) America and the world; and (4) the market economy. Taken together, students' answers to these questions provide a high-resolution image of the state of learning about America's history and institutions on campuses throughout the nation. The results are far from encouraging. In fact, they constitute nothing less than a coming crisis in American citizenship.

This report presents four key findings:

FINDING 1: America's colleges and universities fail to increase knowledge about America's history and institutions.
Seniors scored just 1.5 percent higher on average than freshmen.
If the survey were administered as an exam in a college course, seniors would fail with an overall average score of 53.2 percent, or F on a traditional grading scale.
Though a university education can cost upwards of $200,000, and college students on average leave campus $19,300 in debt, they are no better off than when they arrived in terms of acquiring the knowledge necessary for informed engagement in a democratic republic and global economy.
FINDING 2: Prestige doesn't pay off.
Colleges that rank high in the U.S. News and World Report 2006 ranking were ranked low in the ISI ranking of learning in these key fields. Specifically, a 1 percent increase in civic learning as measured in our survey corresponded to a decrease of 25 positions in the U.S. News ranking.
There is no relationship between the cost of attending a college and students' acquired understanding of America's history and key institutions. Students at relatively inexpensive colleges often learn more, on average, than their counterparts at expensive colleges.
At many colleges, including Brown, Georgetown, and Yale, seniors know less than freshmen about America's history, government, foreign affairs, and economy. We characterize this phenomenon as "negative learning." A majority of the 16 schools where senior scores were actually lower than freshman scores are considered to be among the most prestigious colleges in the United States.
FINDING 3: Students don't learn what colleges don't teach.
Student learning about America's history and institutions decreases when fewer courses are taken in history, political science, government, and economics.
Schools where students took more courses in American history, political science, and economics outperformed those schools where fewer courses were completed.
Civic learning is significantly greater at schools that require students to take courses in American history, political science, and economics. Student knowledge in these key areas improves significantly at colleges that still value excellent teaching in the classroom.
FINDING 4: Greater civic learning goes hand-in-hand with more active citizenship.
Students who demonstrated greater learning of America's history and institutions were more engaged in citizenship activities such as voting, volunteer community service, and political campaigns.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The report concludes with five recommendations aimed at improving undergraduate learning about America's history and institutions:

improve the assessment of learning outcomes at the college and university level;
increase the number of required history, political science, and economics courses;
hold higher education more accountable to its mission and fundamental responsibility to prepare its students to be informed, engaged participants in a democratic republic;
better inform students and their parents, public officials, and taxpayers of a given university's performance in teaching America's history and institutions; and
build academic centers on campuses to encourage and support the restoration of teaching American history, political science, and economics.
ISI offers this report with the hope that it will stimulate corrective action and accountability among those immediately responsible for higher education—trustees, donors, alumni, parents, public officials, administrators, faculty, and students. It is still possible to improve the teaching at our colleges and universities of America's history and institutions, and thereby to forestall the coming crisis in citizenship.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

German appeasement

Germany continues to ignore history and embrace the always failed and frequently catastrophic policy of appeasement.

This time, German Opera in Berlin confirmed that it will not be performing Mozart’s “Idomeneo” because, wait for it, here it comes, I hope you’re sitting……….

…. fear of inciting Islamic extremists.

While some in Germany are expressing outrage and disappointment, the German Opera in Berlin is holding steadfast to their cowardice, which means that once again, Muslim fanatics have won a battle and have been reinforced in their belief that they will win the war.

Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM

September 27, 2006

Safe living

It wasn’t that long ago that the papers were filled with stories about workers comp rates and the impending financial collapse of California. I was one of those who helped fight for the changes and was happy to see them take place.

Before that, for those who remember – and it wasn’t that long ago – crime was the topic of the day. It was thought to be unsafe to live in California and especially Los Angeles. Not a day went by that we didn’t read that crime was the number one concern of our citizens.

You don’t hear nearly as much about crime these days. Perhaps that’s because Los Angeles is now the second safest city in the country (behind New York) of cities with over 1 million in population. Combine that with Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks perennially being two of the top three safest cities in the country with populations of over 100,000 and you begin to understand.

It’s great that crime and workers comps rates have dropped and congratulations to all of us. It is also a testament to how Californians can fix problems that we focus on and how solutions for seemingly insolvable problems are out there.

Our job as citizens – and voters – is to focus the attention of OUR elected officials on the issue WE think are important.

Californians – what’s next?

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Connecticut’s Ned Lamont

Democratic Senate candidate (and primary winner) Ned Lamont, while clarifying that he has never been a Republican, acknowledges he admires Senator Chuck Hagel for his stand against Bush’s foreign policy and Senator McCain who has no shortage or run-ins with the president. Lamont says, “I admire a guy who stands up.”

Apparently this admiration for mavericks does not extend to his own party as Lamont ousted Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman (and now independent candidate) primarily campaigning against Lieberman for taking a stand in support of the Iraq war and inconsistent with most Democrats.

I believe the common thread for Mr. Lamont is not supporting independent thinkers, but rather supporting anyone who stands against the president and attacking anyone who supports the president.

Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM

September 26, 2006

Hollywood left has left Angelides

Nothing says reelect Schwarzenegger and good-bye Angelides like losing the support of the Hollywood left.

Steven Spielberg, Sherry Lansing, Danny DeVito, Rhea Perlman, James Cameron and Jeffrey Katzenberg are throwing their support to the governor.

Combine this with at best lukewarm support from the unions and gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides is looking at a huge loss of traditional support with nothing coming up to replace it. Short of praying for a series of Schwarzenegger gaffes, Angelides should start considering options for the free time he’ll have starting November 8th and Democrats should start to look at 2010.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Ronald Reagan

The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 25, 2006

John Kerry and Pepperdine

John Kerry gave a speech last Monday at Pepperdine University, publicly addressing questions of faith, the role of faith in our leaders lives and in our government. While I do not agree with everything that Mr. Kerry said, I do think that as close the election was, had he given this speech during his campaign, he very likely would have won.

Click on continue for the entire text of the speech.

Text of John Kerry's Speech on Faith
John Kerry Campaign
Monday, September 18, 2006; 8:00 PM

The following are remarks on faith and values prepared for delivery by Senator John Kerry on Monday, Sept. 18 at Pepperdine University.

Thank you. It's wonderful to be here. For some time, I have looked forward to this opportunity to come here to talk about my faith, and the role of faith in public life. And I'm very grateful to Pepperdine -- an institution explicitly founded to shine the light of God's truth through the service of its graduates -- for giving me this opportunity.

There will always be those bent on corrupting our political discourse, particularly where religion is involved. But I learned how important it is to make certain people have a deeper understanding of the values that shape me and the faith that sustains me. Despite this New Englanders' past reticence of talking publicly about my faith, I learned that if I didn't fill in the picture myself, others would draw the caricature for me. I will never let that happen again -- and neither should you, because no matter your party, your ideology, or your faith, we are all done a disservice when the debate is reduced to ugly and untrue caricatures.

I was born, baptized, and raised a Catholic. Needless to say, my first and formative sense of religion came from my parents, Richard and Rosemary. My mother was a Protestant but went out of her way to see that I learned my catechism, attended Church, and prepared for First Communion. Both my parents taught me early on that we are all put on this earth for something greater than ourselves. Later, I was an altar boy at my Church. My parents taught me my faith and they taught me to live by it.

I went to a high school called St. Paul's, an Episcopal school where we attended chapel every morning and twice on Sundays in addition to the Catholic service in town which a group of us would go to. I studied religious studies and as you would imagine at a school called St. Paul's, became more than familiar with St. Paul's letters to just about everybody.

The Catholic church that I grew up with didn't focus on scripture the way we do today. The Mass was in Latin. But with the Second Vatican Council, that changed. Now, revised prayers for the Sacraments and other parts of the liturgy use Biblical language almost entirely. It elevates both our practice and our understanding of our faith. And despite our continued historical and theological differences, it has helped to emphasize what unites Christian churches rather than what divides them. The long and short of it is that today we are far more "Bible"-focused and knowledgeable based on several clear principles, chief among them the centrality of Jesus.

I confronted my own mortality head-on during the Vietnam War, where faith was as much a part of my daily life as the battle itself. But I have to say that in retrospect my relationship with God was a dependent one -- a "God -- get me through this and I'll be good" -- relationship. As I became disillusioned with the war, my faith was also put to the test. For me, war was a difficult place for faith to grow. Some of my closest friends were killed. I saw things that disturb me to this day. Theologians often talk about "the problem of evil," the difficulty of explaining why terrible and senseless events are part of God's plan. In combat, you confront the problem of evil in an up-front and personal way that is hard for others to fully understand.

So, yes, I prayed hard while I was in Vietnam and I made it back, but the experience, the "problem of evil," took some time to reconcile. When I returned stateside, I went through a period of alienation. I was inspired by the Christian moral witness of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement, Reverend William Sloane Coffin in the peace movement and other voices of Christian conscience. But still I was searching -- somewhat spiritually adrift, unsure of my relationship with God and the Church.

Within the Catholic Church, we talk about being born Catholic -- but as in any faith community, there's a moment when you first consciously choose whether to fully participate in your heritage, or look elsewhere. For me that came a number of years later after the war.

For twelve years I wandered in the wilderness, went through a divorce and struggled with questions about my direction. Then suddenly and movingly, I had a revelation about the connection between the work I was doing as a public servant and my formative teachings. Indeed, the scriptures provided a firmer guide about values applied to life -- many of the things you are wrestling with now today.

I remember how difficult it was to be your age -- so many decisions to work out, such a tangle of choices and possibilities, whose consequences seem unknowable -- and yet life-shaping. For you here at Pepperdine, it's a time when you're exploring your commitment to God, embarking on a journey to figure out how to lead a good life, how to translate your values -- who you love, what you are passionate about, how you worship -- how you translate that into the daily fabric of your existence.

One of my favorite passages from scripture, a familiar story from the Gospel According to Mark 10:35-45, sheds a lot of light for me on how to translate my faith into action.

The Apostles James and John ask their teacher Jesus if they can sit, one at his right hand and one at his left hand, and bask in his glory. They want to be seen as first among the disciples. And Jesus tells them, while they can drink from his cup and share in the baptism, the special position they want isn't his to grant -- it's only for those who are up to the task.

When the other ten disciples heard about James and John's request, they were angry. And so Jesus gathered them all together and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to be first among you must be servant of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

This is the third time Jesus' disciples have misunderstood the nature of their discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. And I suppose you could say that James and John are trying to become the first political appointees in the New Testament -- trying to get special favors for their proximity to power.

But Jesus responds with an essential lesson. He contrasts greatness in the Kingdom of God with Roman political power. While greatness in the Roman Empire is based on brute force -- lording it over those less fortunate for the worst possible reason -- simply because you can, greatness in the Kingdom of God is based on humble service, on being servant to all."

Those lines in Mark had a profound impact on me: "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve." Well, I consider public leadership to be a form of Christian service and an expression of my faith. I believe the most important teaching of the Gospels is that it is not enough just to say one believes in Jesus. Believing in Jesus requires action -- it requires a bona fide effort -- commitment to live in the example of Jesus and nowhere in my judgment is the expectation of service more clearly stated than in Matthew 25:34:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

So it is important for me to share with you how we might move from the example of Jesus as a servant into addressing the pressing needs of our time. The Catholic Bishops in their 2004 election guide provided great spiritual wisdom and guidance as they set forth a series of questions about expectations in public life.

I think they are questions any Christian needs to wrestle with:

1. After September 11, how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world -- more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst -- innocent unborn children? How will our nation resist what Pope John Paul II calls a "culture of death"? How can we keep our nation from turning to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems -- abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world, as well as the fact that the younger you are, the more likely you are to be poor here in the richest nation on earth?

4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral roles and responsibilities, offering them real choices and financial resources to obtain quality education and decent housing?

5. How will we address the growing number of families and individuals without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?

6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination?

7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace is too often overwhelmed by violence?

8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, care for creations, and overcome injustice?

9. When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force -- for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice and care for God's creation?

I believe these questions can be gathered around four issues where people of faith from every background can work together with other people of good will towards public policies that contribute to the common good.

The first and perhaps most obvious common challenge is to take practical steps to address global issues of poverty, disease, and despair.

The cares of the poor and the troubled should be the focus of all our work.

Today extreme poverty shackles one sixth of the globe's population, one-fifth lack access to safe drinking water. Here in America twenty one percent of our children live in poverty. Eleven million under 21 don't have health insurance. Thirty thousand children worldwide perish each day because of hunger and disease attributable to poverty.

A few weeks ago, we passed the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

And, amidst the howling wind and rushing flood waters, you could practically feel Americans' emotional recognition -- our shock -- at just how far we still have to climb to fulfill our Christian responsibility to care for the worst off among us. Jesus told us "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me," but when the great flood of our time came, we weren't ready. Interestingly, the most rapid and effective response came from the faith community, but as a country, we left people to die on rooftops and in hospital beds. The failure should sting and it should shame all of us, but it should also bring a renewed sense of mission: We've lapsed in our covenant between the people and the government, between rich and poor people and between rich and poor countries, that nobody should be left behind. No American, no country, no human being.

You -- each of you -- can do something about this and get involved in a multitude of ways including joining something like the ONE Campaign. And for those who ask the inevitable question, 'why does that matter to me here at home as a citizen of our country?' With the right political leadership, we can end extreme poverty in your lifetime if we commit the resources to do it.

Evangelical Christians have honored the best traditions of Christianity and of patriotism in tirelessly fighting to end the genocide in Darfur. I've often referred to the words of the Epistle of St. James 2:17: "faith without works is dead" -- and Christian work in Darfur -- day in and day out to make sure that "never again" isn't just a convenient lie we tell ourselves to sleep better at night- is the embodiment of that Christian -- of that American -- ideal.

Christians like Rick Warren are also working to fight AIDS. How can we sit idly by when this plague of our time sweeps across the world? How can we not do everything in our power to make sure that our life-saving treatments are spread far and wide to those in need? There are forty million cases today, and last year 3 million people died from AIDS. Jesus did not "heal the sick" only if they had the money to pay for it, only if they could afford antiretroviral drugs -- no, he sought out people in need. And we need to do the same today.

A second common challenge arises from the deep concern virtually all people of faith are enjoined to maintain toward sustaining and protecting God's first creation. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:20 says, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything on it." The Prophet Isaiah (66:2) says, "has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?"

These days we face problems on a biblical scale -- floods, storms, plagues, the destruction of entire cities. And it is my belief that confronting manmade climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges we face.

Evangelicals talk about "creation-care" -- that any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God. God called us to be stewards of the earth and its creatures, and since most of the climate change problem is human induced, its' pretty clear that we haven't done that good of a job.

The warnings are loud and clear for all to see -- rising waters, melting caps, storms of ever-greater proportions, and ironclad scientific evidence.

Surely this is an issue where people of faith can come together and demand action. I can assure you, when I cast a vote in the Senate on environmental issues, I try to act as a steward of the earth.

A third area where we can find common ground is on one of the most emotional cultural issues of all: abortion. Obviously the issue of abortion has been enormously divisive, but there is also no denying there is common ground. There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America.

Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place. And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

Even as a supporter of Roe V. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and unconstructive. Unfortunately, this debate has been framed in an overly partisan setting with excessive language on both sides -- none of which does justice to the depth of moral conviction held by all. There's been demonization rather than debate. Distrust rather than discussion. Everyone is worse off for it. Instead of making enemies, we need to make progress.

What would progress look like? Many people are surprised to learn that the most dramatic decline in America's abortion rate took place under the last Democratic administration when poverty declined, more people graduated from college, employment grew at record rates, and the economy grew at record levels. Unfortunately, the economic policies of these last six years increase the pressure on women with unplanned pregnancies to seek abortions.

In addition to focusing on policies that will prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, I believe we should also embrace and expand a proven set of economic measures to again make significant progress on reducing the number of abortions in America. This would mean raising the minimum wage, expanding educational opportunity, giving tax credits for domestic adoptions, providing universal health insurance, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and expanding federally funded child care.

The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all:

rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences -- we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect -- and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality.

Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It's in Americas' interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority -- and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:

sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to.

The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don't have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

I lay out these four great challenges -- fighting poverty and disease, taking care of the earth, reducing abortions, and fighting only just wars -- as godly tasks on which we can transcend the culture wars and reach common ground.

And for all the anger and fear so often expressed about the intersection of politics and religion, I believe that a vision of public service based upon serving rather than being served is ultimately a vision of hope and not despair. The Scripture says, again and again, "be not afraid." God is not through with humanity. Shame on us if we use our faith to divide and alienate people from one another or if we draft God into partisan service.

Shame on us if we sow fear for our own advantage. As God gives us the ability to see, let us take up the tasks associated with loving our neighbors as ourselves. We can take up God's work as our own. The call of Jesus, and of every great religious leader, to everyone is one of service to all and not the pursuit of power. Each of us needs to do our best to answer that call, and help each other hear it in a common spirit of obedience, humility and love.

Posted by sharris at 12:04 AM

Comments (4) | TrackBack

United Nations survey

The Hudson Institute did a survey of Americans and found the following….

57% believe that unless it is reformed fast, the U.N. should be scrapped.

62% believe it’s ineffective at stopping wars

70% want America to reduce our contributions

34% believe the U.N. promotes America’s interests.

If you haven’t had a chance, read my blog entry on the United Nations from yesterday written before I read this poll.

Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM

September 24, 2006

United Nations - isn't

The first thing to acknowledge about the United Nations is that – they’re not. There are currently 192 United Nations member states, roughly 1/3 of which can be considered democracies. It is a given that on any issue the United States brings to the U.N., it will be in a minority and will not receive support. We fund 20% of the U.N. budget, but continue to be the whipping boy for every two-bit dictator and we continue to allow it.
Last week it was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, the kind of man who makes one rethink Executive order 12333.

While enough has been written about Mr. Chavez and his remarks certainly say more about him and United Nations than they do about our president, Chavez did make one comment this past week that is worth evaluating when he said the United Nations was worthless. At some point, the United States is going to have to acknowledge that funding dictators and tyrants and then begging for their support in matters that go against their beliefs and best interests may not be the best way to run our foreign policy.

While I would certainly be open to a United Nations of democracies, or at least of like interest, the current model just doesn’t make sense.

This is an organization that last year condemned Israel 19 times, but did not condemn Sudan and their acts in Darfur even once. It is an organization that will only move when there is genocide, so they simply refuse to label any act as genocide.

The United Nations will accept any act, any comment, any view, as long as it is anti-America. Imagine the world’s outcry if John Bolton had called another world leader a devil, crossed himself (by the way – a religious act) and referred to a smell of sulfur. He would have been pilloried. However, Hugo Chavez possesses the two traits that get him a free pass throughout most of the world and certainly from the left in our own country.

He hates America and loves Castro.

America should acknowledge – and then act on the acknowledgement – that every single action we take, every dollar we invest (here or abroad) and every decision we make starts with a single premise – is it in the best interests of the United States of America.

If it is, move forward. If it is not, withdraw. It’s that simple.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

CMC spending

In 2005 CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) spent $515 billion dollars, 21% of the total federal budget and $21 billion more than the total of all defense spending.

We hear constantly that too much is spent on defense and not enough is spent on healthcare, or at least not enough by the government. As we debate these issues, it’s good to know just how much is being spent.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 23, 2006

Pope wrong to apologize

Pope Benedict XVI took a bold step in last week’s speech – he spoke the truth about Muslims and the danger they represent to the rest of the world.

The exact sentence (taken from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor) was…

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhumane, such as his command to spread the faith he preached.”

Little has changed since the 14th-century and Muslims worldwide, insulted by the Pope’s courage and candor, did everything they could to prove him correct. They murdered a Somalian nun, al Qaida declared a holy war on “the worshipper of the cross” and the Pakistani parliament passed a resolution condemning the Pope. There were the usual and predictable protests worldwide, burnings in effigy and outrage from Muslim leaders that someone might publicly call this murderous lot to be evil.

Unfortunately, the Pope weakened and apologized saying he was “deeply sorry” for offending “the sensibility of Muslims.” He should apologize for putting sensibility and Muslim in the same sentence.

The New York Times and the Washington Post were quick to leap to the side of the Muslims. Apparently, as they pointed out, Israelis are reacting disproportional when trying to find and kill terrorist Hezbollah members, but nuns being gunned down in the street is a proportionate response to a single quote in a long speech.

I would surely love to see the proportional response charts the New York Times keeps and would have loved it even more if the Pope had stood strong by the truth.

Posted by sharris at 04:57 PM

Villaraigosa in '08?

I had an opportunity to meet this week with a California political expert who has had almost unparalleled access to leaders of both parties for the past 18 months.

The meetings led to a fascinating prediction…

Governor Schwarzenegger will win reelection in November, be recalled within two years and be replaced by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Even more interesting, this expert is unsure as to which party will be first to file for the recall; Democrats or Republicans. The predicted cost for filing and signatures (based on an anticipated low November turnout) could be as low as $2 million – quite a bargain for someone legitimately interested in a recall, or simply looking for an incredible media bargain to generate publicity for an individual or a cause.

Direct democracy, love it or hate it, continues to be the best entertainment value in a state where entertainment reigns supreme. Somewhere, Hiram Johnson is smiling☺

Posted by sharris at 04:39 PM

September 21, 2006

Same information?

The Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Daily News based their top headlines today on the same polling information.

The Times wrote….

Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters – The turnaround is a sign that the election battle in November could be fierce.

The Daily News wrote…

Thumbs Down on Congress – GOP-controlled legislature out of touch with most Americans.

The almost opposite take on the exact same information brings up a number of interesting points….

1. Getting your news from a single source – any single source – is a bad idea.

2. The idea that newspapers somehow have secret meetings and work together
is silly.

3. The Los Angeles Times, long considered a leader in the liberal movement, continues it slow, but consistent, march toward the center.

4. November 7th is going to be fun!

Posted by sharris at 07:44 AM

People’s Machine

Today I had the pleasure of interviewing Joe Mathews, LA Times reporter and author of an excellent book – The People’s Machine, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy, for my radio show: California: The Alpha State.

It’s a great book and a terrific interview which you can hear on my website. Enjoy!

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 20, 2006

Public campaign finance stumbles – 1 billion times

The 2008 presidential campaign is expected (or feared) to cost upwards of $500 million, for each of the two major parties candidates. $1 billion dollars invested to elect the next president of the United States.

In an ironic twist, the campaign will be so expensive; neither candidate will be able to take advantage of the money offered by (and supplied by our tax dollars) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This results from the strict spending and fund raising limits that come with accepting the money and will preclude either candidate from accepting up to $85 million dollars.

Even John McCain (not yet formally announced, but all but certain to run) whose name is tied forever to the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill is expected to decline the money and run his campaign independently. It should be noted that he did not sign as a supporter of legislation this summer that would have further changed campaign finance.

I have become more and more convinced that campaign finance reform needs to happen, but that we have not yet found the right formula. For those who believe in direct democracy, this would be the perfect candidate for a Citizens Assembly!

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Moderate Defined column

Yesterday the Ventura County Star ran my newest column, Moderate Defined . It takes a look at the recent trend of politicians, from both parties, willingness to make compromises and achieve results, without compromising their principles.

I have already received quite a few emails and comments, almost all of them in support of the concept. If you have not had a chance, please continue reading and let me know what you think. Thank you.

Moderate Defined

Pull quote - A moderate is someone who understands that he or she can compromise positions without compromising principles.

Scott Harris

I have written previously about the potential for a third party in American politics, a centrist bloc that fills the void for the vast number of people who don’t fit comfortably in the Democratic or Republican parties, but who are politically active and who define themselves as moderates.

Ideologues in both major parties dismiss those closer to the center and – God forbid – those who vote for a candidate and not the party line as wishy-washy and non-committed. According to this doctrine, voting should be predetermined by party registration and not executed after research, discussion and thought.

If I agree with the Republican platform on social security and the Democratic platform on education, which party should I choose? Or more challenging, what if I agree with Democrats on capital punishment and Republicans on abortion? Do I vote my conscious or my party? Can I be a loyal party member, while disagreeing with some party positions? Is there any value to being a “loyal party member?”

It is not unreasonable to think that a lifelong Democrat could have more in common with Rudy Giuliani than with Hillary Clinton, or that a lifelong Republican might have preferred Joe Lieberman in office ahead of George Bush. Here in California, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger leads liberal Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides by 13% in the polls. Since registered Democrats far exceed Republicans in California, a few are obviously crossing party lines to vote for the man they think represents their interests and the interests of the state. Are they all traitors to the cause or simply registered Democrats who believe in this instance, the best man for the job is a Republican?

A moderate is not someone whose view is always at the midpoint on the liberal / conservative spectrum, but rather is someone who understands that he or she can compromise positions without compromising principles. This is the danger of moderates to the existing parties – they are not simply the unengaged, but instead are quite engaged, but motivated by results, not ideology.

This willingness to work toward the center has taken hold in Sacramento and recent legislation has shown that bipartisan efforts can work. An example is the recent minimum wage agreement between the Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature. The governor would have preferred no increase in minimum wage and the Democrat-dominated legislature would have preferred a larger minimum with cost of living increases built in. However, the political reality is that we live in a blue state with a red governor and a reasonable compromise was reached. This is not party ideology; it’s leadership and Governor Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata are to be applauded for this, as well as for their bipartisan efforts on global warming and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

At the same time, it is important for both liberals and conservatives to have strong uncompromising voices. California’s best example is State Senator Tom McClintock. There is no more passionate, informed or clear voice for traditional social and fiscal conservative views than McClintock. While his stance has impacted his effectiveness as a legislator, he has brilliantly framed the conservative point of view and created a foundation for exploration and discussion. Conservatives and liberals alike can listen to McClintock, understand his point of view, and develop their own positions.

Some issues offer no room for compromise and will continue to divide us and inspire rallying cries. These are “moral issues,” abortion and capital punishment being the two most prominent and obvious. However, ideologues often try to create a sense of moral outrage over what are simply fiscal issues. Minimum wage, infrastructure, healthcare and education are critically important to the health and future of our state, but they are not moral issues. They are debatable and offer room for reasonable compromise. Many rational people—voters and elected officials—recognize that the solution lies in the middle.

For those who stand tall as moderates—Governor Schwarzenegger, Assemblymen Richman and Canciamilla, and recently Speaker Nunez, Senator Perata and Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa —I applaud you. California has a rich history of leading the way in political transformation seen in the reforms of Hiram Johnson, the American reawakening of Ronald Reagan, and the voter governance of Proposition 13. The rest of the nation would do well to watch us again. If politics is truly the art of compromise, we need a few more artists and a few less critics.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 19, 2006

Did I read this right?

Thank you George Will for bringing Thomas B. Edsall of The New Republic, and his new book “Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power”, to my attention.

After pointing out that that one-third of American children -- and more than two-thirds of black children -- are born to unmarried mothers, Edsall writes one of the more astonishing, out of touch with reality, reasons to truly fear the end game of those on the FAR left passages that I’ve ever read….

Edsall first expresses concern that Americans differ in their positions on the ``freedom from the need to maintain the marital or procreative bond.'', then writes…

``To social conservatives, these developments (illegitimate children) have signaled an irretrievable and tragic loss. Their reaction has fueled, on the right, a powerful traditionalist movement and a groundswell of support for the Republican Party. To modernists, these developments constitute, at worst, the unfortunate costs of progress, and, at best -- and this is very much the view on the political left as well as of Democratic Party loyalists -- they constitute a triumph over unconscionable obstacles to the liberation and self-realization of much of the human race.''

For me, this paragraph had to be read 3-4 times to ensure that I was not misunderstanding his point(s). He dismisses marriage and parents as an anachronism and the terrible and avoidable difficulties that are faced predominantly by children born into fatherless homes as an acceptable price to be paid for his goals, which appear to be the destruction of every social more and norm, including that of a traditional family.

This man is a published author and until recently, was a political reporter for the Washington Post. God help us!

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 18, 2006

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals

Sam Harris (no relation) writes a terrific co-ed this morning in the LA Times. He opens by proudly establishing his liberal credentials and then lays into liberals for being blinded to the very dangers we face, by their hatred and anger (some, if not most, of which he feels is justified) toward President George Bush, his staff and policies.

Denying the president has made mistakes, some of them serious, is ridiculous. However, it is no less ridiculous – or dangerous – to ignore the challenges we face as a nation. Mr. Harris goes so far as to agree with conservatives loudest, longest and strongest attack against liberals – that they are soft on terrorism.

Regardless of your political leanings, feelings toward the president, Iraq, liberals or conservatives – this piece is well worth reading and follows here….

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
By Sam Harris
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.

September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Posted by sharris at 07:30 AM

Ronald Reagan

If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM

September 17, 2006

Governor’s gaffe - Angelides mistake

The governor acknowledges making the statement that “I mean Cuban, Puerto-Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.”

The comments were made in a private conversation with Susan Kennedy, his Democratic chief-of-staff and were by most accounts made good-naturedly.

The comments were leaked by the Angelides campaign and there is still some doubt as to whether or not they hacked into the website to obtain them, or if they were available to all website visitors.

The governor has apologized for his comments.

The woman whom they were about – Republican state Assemblywomen Bonnie Garcia has dismissed this as a non-issue and says she often calls herself a “hot-blooded Latina.”

Even Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez declined to comment and his spokesperson, Richard Stapler, acknowledges, “These are hardly Nixon’s Watergate tapes.”

All of which begs the question, why can’t gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides let this go? In a statement, Angelides said, “Once again, Governor Schwarzenegger has used language that is deeply offensive to all Californians and embarrassed our state.” and that the governor should “conduct himself with dignity.”

Certainly it is not offensive to all Californians, myself included, but most importantly Assemblywomen Garcia. Does Angelides understand better than Garcia what should and should not offend her and all Californians? Or, is this a desperate attempt to get traction in a race in which the Democratic candidate is rapidly becoming an afterthought? Either way, it is at best a political mistake on his part and the sooner he drops the righteous indignation act and focuses on real issues, the better off he will be.

Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM

September 16, 2006

Pigs must be flying

Anna Quindlen writes a bi-monthly column for Newsweek magazine. I have been reading it forever (if you have to ask, for the same reason I listen to Al Franken and others might watch horror films), but I can’t remember ever agreeing with her before. However, this week is a terrific column and well worth reading.

She addresses the issue of frightening our children out of their childhood in a misguided effort to keep them from societies demons. The best job I’ve seen of attacking what I believe has developed into a problem and a rational look at parenthood. Enjoy!

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 15, 2006

“Dog” Chapman

Whatever else you can say about the Mexican government, you cannot say they don’t have a sense of humor and a level of gall rarely reached.

The Mexican government arranged for bounty hunter “Dog” Chapman to be arrested, on American soil, by Americans, because he broke Mexican law, which does not allow bounty hunting.

The United States government, in their infinite wisdom, arrested an American citizen at the request of the Mexican government to face charges for bringing home a rapist.

In the meantime, millions of Mexicans continue to flood over a porous border at the insistence of their own government – completely ignoring our laws – and with at least the tacit approval of our own government.

The United States government has again shown an amazingly misplaced set of priorities and how we have become lapdogs begging for the approval of any government that might give it. The idea that Mexico is insulted that an American citizen did not respect their laws and that we responded to this idiocy is insulting to Americans.

If American deportation centers are going to filled with criminals heading to Mexico, how about starting with Mexicans!

Posted by sharris at 07:16 AM

Minimum wage goes up

Whether you believe in minimum wage or not, it’s a fact of life. Like welfare and public education, it has become accepted as a part of the government’s responsibility. Many will still argue that it shouldn’t be, but that is a purely academic argument, since it is not going to go away.

The governor this week signed into law a new minimum wage for Californians. A few quick facts for those who are interested….

Federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour and has not been raised since 1997.

California’s current minimum wage is $6.75 per hour.

The law will raise this to $7.50, starting January 1, 2007.

This will give us the 4th highest (after Washington, Oregon and Connecticut) minimum wage in the country.

The second increase will bring it to $8 per hour, starting January 1, 2008.

It is estimated the increases will cost California businesses $2.6 billion dollars.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 14, 2006

Wal-Mart attacked again - Daley stands tall

As the anti Wal-Mart movement continues to attack, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has counter attacked.

Wal-Mart’s sin is that it is successful. There are people in this country who automatically despise and attack anything and everything that is successful. Wal-Mart has riled this anti-capitalist group by building a successful chain of retail stores. They make the mistake of offering low priced products - a tremendous benefit to shoppers, especially low-income shoppers. They have also created tens of thousand of jobs for Americans around the country. They have done this legally and above board. It is worth remembering that they do not force anyone to shop at their stores, supply product to their stores or work at their stores.

However, this is not good enough for the “we know better than you what is good for you” crowd. The American people, by working, supplying and shopping at Wal-Mart have made their position clear. However, why listen to the people when you can legislate? The latest effort to destroy success was a “living wage” ordinance in Chicago. The ordinance would have required mega-stores, predominantly Wal-Mart, to pay their employees more than their smaller competitors. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley did the right thing, the American thing, in vetoing this legislation. It is worth noting that this is his first veto in 17 years as Mayor.

While it is almost certain that the socialists next move will be in the courts, maybe, just maybe, this time around it won’t work.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 13, 2006

Term limits are insulting, not limiting

Regular readers of this site know that I view term limits as one of the Unholy Trinity (along with gerrymandered districts and closed primaries) that severely limits the value of elections.

They are insulting in concept. Term limits simply state that we don’t trust our politicians enough to keep them in office and don’t trust ourselves enough to throw them out. To protect us from ourselves, we toss them all out and hope the bad outweighs the good. Hard to see it in a positive light.

That being said, they don’t work. They simply trade jobs, or pass it one to a family member. Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi is termed out, so he’s running for Lieutenant Governor. Who will he be replacing? Termed out Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante. And what is Cruz doing? Running for Insurance Commissioner. Might as well leave them where they are.

This year, 12 out of 40 State Senate members are termed out and 29 of the 80 Assembly members are being forced out as well.

10 assembly members are running for Senate and two Senators are trying to downgrade to Assembly.

It’s time to extend – or even drop – term limits and learn to take responsibility for the people we elect.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Latinos challenge

A Los Angeles Labor Day rally for illegal immigrants drew 1,500 people. Organizers had hoped for 50,000 people and now have to be concerned by the small turnout. It was especially small in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who turned out at protests / rally’s earlier this year.

No doubt many Americans would agree with John Keeley, spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies who said, “ The mass sea of illegal aliens bearing foreign flags and hostile placards produced a pronounced backlash from which they’ve never recovered.”

Americans have repeatedly shown that regarding illegal immigration, they are concerned about border security first. The current administration continues to be unwilling to deal with this issue and have made no progress in the past six years. Lock down the borders, stem the flow of illegal immigrants and then we can turn our attention and efforts to resolving the issue of the 11-13 million illegal immigrants that are already here.

If Latino leaders really want to make headway with the majority of Americans, they can start by not labeling every effort to secure the borders as “racist”. Do that and I am almost certain there would be more movement toward some sort of guest worker / amnesty program. It can get lost in the shrillness of extremists, but most Americans are still Americans and America first and cannot be expected to stand tall with open arms for those who are not.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 12, 2006

President Bush’s speech

President Bush delivered his September 11th speech last night and awoke this morning to a chorus of Democrats morally outraged that the speech was political and divisive.

Leading the charge was Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass who said, "The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11."

Following on Kennedy’s heels was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada who said Bush was "more consumed by staying the course in Iraq and playing election-year politics. The American people deserved better last night, they deserved a chance to reclaim that sense of unity, purpose and patriotism that swept through our country five years ago."

Surprising no one the White House denied the speech was political in fact or intent and Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said "Now is not the time for cheap partisan politics. We're in this war and it's a war that's going to define this whole new century."
I did not find the speech political (or good, sadly), but maybe it’s because I agree with the policy. However, that being said, what could the president have said that was important that wouldn’t come across as political? Everything the president does, by definition, is political. He did not bad-mouth Democrats, ask for new policies or monies and overall, the speech was fairly innocuous.

I also wonder, what’s wrong with it being political? These are, after all, politicians, elected to represent us and I want them to have opinions and views and I want them shared with the American people. If we agree with the view, we can reelect the same people, or those with similar views and if we don’t, we can kick them out of office once every two, four or six years. Political should not be pejorative.

Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, supporter of the decision to go into Iraq or not, the president made one comment that I think is compelling, important and accurate. For those who ask me why I support staying in Iraq (separate from whether we should have gone or not), I agree with the following statement – and that is why….

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," Bush said. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.”

Posted by sharris at 09:36 AM

Ronald Reagan

Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Posted by sharris at 12:56 AM

Joe Mathews and the People’s Machine

I wrote recently about Joe Mathews and his terrific new book, The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy, about Governor Schwarzenegger and his rise to political power.

Joe will be speaking this Sunday (the 17th) at Chaucer’s Books in Santa Barbara. If your schedule allows you to be in Santa Barbara at 3:00 Sunday afternoon, it would be time well spent to stop by, hear Joe speak and maybe even pick up a copy of his book!

Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM

September 11, 2006

September 11, 2001

Never forget, forever strong, destined to win.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 10, 2006

Lobbyists explode

I think most of us can agree that an increased number of lobbyists is not necessarily in the best interest of the country. This is why U. S. News & World Report’s report on the number of lobbyists in Washington D.C. is disconcerting.

Since 1996, the number of registered lobbyists in Washington has grown from less than 11,000 to well over 30,000 – an astounding total of 61 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Couple this with an increase in the money lobbyist’s hand out to $2.4 billion dollars (up from $1.4 billion in 1998) and we have a recipe for disaster.

While Democrats want to talk only about Jack Abranoff and Duke Cunningham and Republicans would like us to focus our attention on the bizarre case of William Jefferson and the $90,000 hidden in his freezer, the truth is there is too much money, too many lobbyists and too few men and women of character – in either party – to believe there is not corruption happening every single day.

I am not the first to ask for campaign finance reform, but allow me to add my name to the growing list. Otherwise, let’s just stick a For Sale sign in front of D.C. and call it what it is.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Iron Irony

For fans of irony, this is a great one. According to a survey by Runzheimer International, the most expensive city in the United States to own a car is, ready…..

Detroit

A mid-size car, factoring in insurance, gas and maintenance, will run you $12,210 in the Motor City. Anyone surprised the American auto industry is in trouble?

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 09, 2006

Blair is gone

The Brits have forced Tony Blair out of office, kindly allowing him a few months to wrap things up. It is hard to read about this and not think how they unceremoniously dumped Winston Churchill during the last week of WWII, a grateful nations reward to the man who saved not only Great Britain, but the world.

I’m not suggesting that Tony Blair has saved the world, but he is one of the few world leaders who have stood up to terrorism, so I’m concerned that he too has been forced out of office.

This item, along with toady’s earlier blog about Germany and appeasement only leaves us short a story about the French surrendering to someone to make a it complete WWII flashback.

Let’s hope our “heads buried in the sand” approach doesn’t cost us 50 million lives like it did in the 1940’s. Hopefully, we will wake up, acknowledge the danger we face and then face it.

Posted by sharris at 07:18 AM

Germany Startled to Find It’s Terror Target

This was an LA Times headline this week as Germany tries to understand why two Lebanese terrorists tried to blow up a German train station. The belief of many Germans seems to be that since we did not send troops to Iraq, do not support America or the war on terror, why us? The only thing that is startling is the naïve belief of the Germans (and others) that appeasement will work and that Islamic terrorists can be appeased.

This lack of understanding is far more dangerous to those who fight terror than the terrorists are. It comes down again to two simple, indisputable, facts.

One, appeasement has never worked. Not once, in the history of the world, has a policy of appeasement been successful in deterring the long-term goals of those being appeased. The irony is that Germany, a country destroyed in the 1940’s by a madman who was created by appeasement and a lack of strength and willpower by world leaders now believes that appeasing madmen will work to their benefit. All it does it delay the inevitable and allow evil to grow stronger. We cannot always count on men like Churchill and Roosevelt to save us from ourselves.

Two, the terrorists are evil people who do not live by the same standards and beliefs as the rest of us do. They are sick, twisted and almost inhuman. Their goals and motivations have almost nothing to do with the United States and Israel, any more than Hitler’s goal was to destroy Jews. They brilliantly use this ploy to galvanize their minions and then move on, finding another focal point to motivate the masses. Like Hitler, just let us defend ourselves, just let us just reunite with Austria, just let us have Czechoslovakia for the extra room we need, they eventually run out of excuses and just admit world domination is the goal and greed and power are the reasons.

The sooner, Germany – and the United States – acknowledges this fact, the sooner we will focus on our enemies – Islamic terrorists – rather than on each other.

Posted by sharris at 05:55 AM

September 08, 2006

Sheriff Bush

Much of what’s happening today in America reminds of the classic scene seen in so many old west movies.

The bad guys ride into town, rob the bank and shoot a couple of townspeople. The sheriff gathers everyone around and they vent their anger and frustration at the bad guys and yell about what needs to be done. 100% agreement. Then, when the sheriff asks who will join him in the posse, the crowd starts to dissipate and pretty soon he’s standing there all alone.

After a couple of days, the townspeople, concerned that the bad guys are coming back and embarrassed that they were afraid / unwilling to help, start to blame the only person they can think of – the sheriff. Why didn’t he know they were coming? Why didn’t he stop them? Why didn’t he catch them on his own? Then a few whispers start – maybe he was in on the job!

This eases the townspeople guilt, allows them a channel for their anger, caters to their need to gossip and blame. And allows them to focus on something besides the fact that the bank robbers are still at large.

A bit of this is happening in this country today, with President Bush and the terrorists. He may not be the best President we’ve ever had and maybe from the comfort of our living rooms we somehow know better than he does how to handle the most daunting challenge the world has seen in a half century, but he is our President, elected not once, but twice.

He has worked extraordinarily hard to try and keep our nation safe and functioning and maybe to a fault, has distanced us from the war. He has made mistakes, maybe many and maybe some that are large, but he is our President and he needs our support. Even if we won’t join the posse, let’s not root for the bank robbers.

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Comments (3) | TrackBack

Americans overweight?

According to Time magazine, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese.

I was thinking that with the drive toward direct democracy and majority rules that so many in this country favor, maybe Time has it wrong and the real fact is that 1/3 of all Americans are underweight or too skinny.

I’m going to grab another snack and put some thought to this☺

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 07, 2006

Joel Fox interview

I had an opportunity yesterday to interview Joel Fox for my weekly radio program – California: The Alpha State. Joel is a close advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger, was president of Howard-Jarvis taxpayers (Prop 13) for 12 years, has tremendous initiative experience and has written hundreds of articles about California politics and policy.

With the November elections right around the corner, it was a great time to listen to Joel’s insights into our past and thoughts about our future. You can hear the interview now on my website.

Enjoy!

Posted by sharris at 07:47 AM

September 06, 2006

Mea Culpa

I try very hard to look at each issue from both sides before I make decisions on which I’ll support and which I won’t. One of my favorite quotes (maybe because it’s mine?) is that “If you cannot articulate the opposing point of view, you do not have a position, you have an agenda.”

This is why I feel forced to admit that when I saw that Senate Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) had forced through last minute legislation restoring some of the workers comp benefits that were cut in 2004, my initial reaction was – here we go again. In it’s simplest form, the bill will double benefits awarded to workers injured on the job.

However, while I am still not sure if I support the legislation, further review of the facts certainly mandates continuing to review the bill and quite possibly, supporting it.

These are the reasons why….

Since the 2004 reform, workers comps rates have dropped by approximately half.

Insurers are making record profits. NOTE – I do not automatically support taking money from those who make it, but since part of my support for the 2004 reform was based on the fact insurers were losing money and going out of business, this has to play a role in this decision.

Doubling benefits to injured workers would add an estimated 5% to annual worker comp costs, while not insignificant, certainly not industry changing.

Last – Stanley Zax, president and chairman of the state’s largest private workers’ comp insurance company, Zenith National Insurance, supports the change. Mr. Zax was one of the leading advocates of reform, but supports this change as fair and not an industry burden.

It is certainly worth exploring further and also serves as a personal reminder to practice what I preach – education before decisions.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 05, 2006

GOP is weak on illegal immigration

Congress went back to work today and the party in charge, the Republicans, opened immediately by acknowledging that politics and a desperate attempt to hold onto their majority in the House of Representatives is far more important to them than the issue of illegal immigration and border security.

President Bush has said that an overhaul of immigration laws is a priority, but the House GOP leadership fears that showing leadership on this issue risks their ability to get reelected as leaders.

Afraid that tackling immigration would show the same kind of divide within GOP ranks that the Iraq war has shown within the Democratic Party (and which Republicans are quick to point out and capitalize on), they have decided to wait until after the November election to tackle an issue the American people have consistently said is critical.

This lack of courage and leadership, so often pointed out in Democrats by Republicans, is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and another example of why Americans are so disappointed in their “leaders.”

Posted by sharris at 07:40 AM

September 04, 2006

al-Qaeda leader captured

Conservatives are constantly complaining that newspapers in this country lean hard to the left, highlighting anything negative about the United States, especially if it involves the Bush presidency or the military and ignoring any story that might put either in a positive light.

Yesterday, Iraqis captured the second ranking al-Qaeda man in Iraq, Hamed Jumana Farid al-Saeedi. Since the left has long complained that the United States should be focused more on al-Qaeda and that we should be doing more to encourage Iraqi independence, this would seem to be a significant news story.

I received three daily newspapers at my home this morning. The Ventura County Star – to their credit – had this on the front page, while the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News both had it buried on page 6.

I took a quick web tour of other California dailies and found the following…

Daily Breeze – Big story on “Crocodile Hunter’s” death, al-Saeedi story buried, same thing with the Sacramento Bee. Both of these are international stories. It’s a bit telling which one gets more play.

The Daily News hit the Croc story hard, no mention of the al-Saeedi on their web home page, same thing with the San Francisco Chronicle.

To their credit, the San Diego Union Tribune joined the Ventura County Star in thinking that capturing the #2 man in a terrorist organization that we are at war with was more important than the death of the Crocodile Hunter.

When the right complains about newspapers leaning left, it is not that they believe newspapers make news up, or purposely lie in their news articles, it’s that they believe the emphasis placed on stories is driven by a left-wing agenda. I think this morning highlights those concerns. Thank goodness an American soldier didn’t deface the Koran or a terrorist prisoner wasn’t given a dinner he found distasteful. THAT would have been front page news.

Posted by sharris at 08:21 AM

Ronald Reagan

The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.

Posted by sharris at 12:54 AM

Schwarzenegger and the People’s Machine

Joe Mathews is a reporter and columnist for the Los Angeles Times. He has written a terrific book, The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy, about Governor Schwarzenegger and his rise to political power. Joe will be a guest in October on my radio show, California: The Alpha State.

He also wrote an excellent column that appeared yesterday in the Los Angles Times and which I’ve included here. If you’re fascinated with California politics, you have to be fascinated with Governor Schwarzenegger and if so, Joe’s column and book and are must-reads.

SEE HOW THEY RUN

Is Schwarzenegger a Closet Democrat?
The governor has always been at his best when he doesn't fit in.

By Joe Mathews, JOE MATHEWS, a Times staff writer, is the author of "The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy."
September 3, 2006

IN THE AUSTRIA of Arnold Schwarzenegger's youth, small institutions such as clubs, pubs and even gyms often affiliated with one of the leading political parties — the Social Democrats, commonly called the reds, or the conservative Austrian People's Party, known as the blacks. With little money in private hands, groups needed the parties for funds.

In his hometown of Thal, a teenage Schwarzenegger seemed to hold opinions in line with the Social Democrats. His longtime schoolmate Peter Urdl, now the mayor, recalls listening to Schwarzenegger express admiration for Bruno Kreisky, the Social Democrat foreign minister who had traveled to the United States, talked politics with the Kennedys and would become chancellor.
Whatever his real sympathies were, Schwarzenegger began working out in a gym funded by the blacks. As a gym regular, he was officially a member of the youth weightlifting team of the Austrian People's Party. He pumped iron for Austria's version of the Republicans. He has been, at least nominally, a Republican ever since.

But is California's governor really a closet Democrat? The question has been raised by journalists and conservative critics, who never tire of taking note of Schwarzenegger's politically assertive wife, his hiring of Democratic aides, his liberal social values, his championing of public works projects and, of late, his compromises with the Legislature's Democratic leadership on a minimum-wage hike, mandatory prescription drug discounts and a measure to fight global warming.

To attempt to answer that question is not to end a conversation but to begin it. Schwarzenegger routinely sides with business and asserts quasi-libertarian views on individual freedom. But the governor, reflecting something inherent in his nature, has always gravitated to people with whom he disagrees. Time and again, he has crossed borders and associated with groups whose experiences seem foreign to his own. In the process, he has made a virtue of not belonging.

Schwarzenegger prospered by coming to a country where he did not speak the language, by appearing in motion pictures despite the obstacles of accent and limited acting skills, and by switching mid-career from action roles to comedic ones that drew laughs in part because they didn't naturally suit him. He won the governorship in large part because he could present himself as an outsider to politics. Square pegs may not fit in round holes, but to his way of thinking, being a square peg puts you ahead of the game. Everyone notices you when you don't fit.

So, it fits that Schwarzenegger doesn't fit politically. Publicly and privately, he revels in the difficulty that pundits and political journalists have in describing him. When I pressed him on his philosophy, he said the man whose views have had the most lasting influence on him was Helmut Knaur, an anarchist who hung out with young bodybuilders around Thal. Knaur liked to say outrageous things and tried to teach English to Schwarzenegger by having him read copies of Playboy.

"He was a very important influence to inspire me to learn, to speak languages, to be more worldly," Schwarzenegger recalled. "He said, 'Think big.' "

When the governor attempts to describes his politics, he invariably turns to his giant life story, and with good reason. He is a Republican not by ideology but by biography. The oft-told story of how he heard Richard Nixon during the 1968 presidential campaign and declared himself a Republican often misses the point. Schwarzenegger was not primarily attracted to Nixon but to the Republican message of individual freedom, which sounded completely different from anything he'd heard in Austria. The Republicans did not sound like the kind of party that would make you join before they let you use their gym.

Austrian social democracy, he believed, limited the horizons of many of his friends. By age 18, in Schwarzenegger's telling, his classmates were seeking to line up government jobs with pensions. A key mentor lined up Schwarzenegger for the job of head lifeguard at the biggest swimming pool in the city of Graz. "I didn't want a safety net," Schwarzenegger said.

His own life has taught him again and again that personal connections trump ideological commitment. His most persistent political booster has been his mother-in-law, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, a Democratic icon and sister of President Kennedy. She persuaded President George H.W. Bush to appoint Schwarzenegger as the nation's fitness czar despite misgivings about elevating a movie star who had used steroids and loved cigars.

The first President Bush liked to call the star "Conan the Republican," but Schwarzenegger wore the label lightly. During the 1990s, he often sounded disgusted with the state of the Republican Party. When Pete Wilson's right hand, Bob White, came to visit him on the set of "End of Days" in 1999, Schwarzenegger was cool to White's idea that he enter politics and revive the state GOP. The star instead complained about the party's support for the impeachment of President Clinton.

Two years later, Schwarzenegger's political consultants sat him down in front of a camera and asked him to state his views on issues. He railed against partisan politics and laid out his plan for expanding healthcare coverage. After focus groups complained that the plan sounded like something Hillary Rodham Clinton would embrace, he dropped the idea.

His Republican coming-out party — his speech to the party's national convention in New York in the summer of 2004 — caused debate within his camp. His wife, Maria Shriver, and his pollster, John McLaughlin, a conservative Republican, suggested that he skip the speech to avoid any partisan taint. And George W. Bush's campaign officials didn't care for his style. They shot down his plans for a big Hollywood entrance. Under one scheme, a stunt double would ride out on stage on a motorcycle in "Terminator" leather as the governor entered from the other side in a suit and tie. In another, Schwarzenegger would reach the stage by walking out of the audience.

His trip to Columbus, Ohio, in late 2004 to campaign for President Bush, a speech that is now the subject of a Democratic attack ad, was made at the urging of Jim Lorimer, his longtime business partner in a fitness convention and bodybuilding tournament that Schwarzenegger has put on in Columbus for years. In the days before the speech, Schwarzenegger went out of his way to disclose his personal affection for the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, an acquaintance since the 1970s, when the future Massachusetts senator helped Schwarzenegger raise money for the documentary "Pumping Iron."

Even as the Republican governor of California, the party label has never been an easy fit. State GOP legislators opposed his early compromises with Democrats on the budget, and they balked at voting for his early Indian gaming compacts. Schwarzenegger made no secret of the fact that he found his main Democratic negotiating partner, state Sen. John Burton, more interesting than GOP legislative leaders.

If voters are uncertain about the governor's true beliefs, Schwarzenegger's own staffers have often been similarly puzzled about them. At the same time Schwarzenegger was publicly accused of "turning to the right" in 2005, many of his allies said privately that they couldn't discern his true intentions. Throughout that year of the special election, his GOP aides complained bitterly about being shut out by "the posse," a group of aides who were personally as well as professionally close to him. Most of the posse were Democrats, among them senior advisor Bonnie Reiss and business czar David Crane.

To evaluate such a governor in partisan terms is beside the point. The question of the November election — and of Schwarzenegger's governorship for as long as it lasts — is whether he can fashion an effective bipartisan coalition to make the big, structural changes in California he has long promised. Or whether this most unusual of men will prove to be a party of one.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 03, 2006

Keith Richman column

I hope you are having a terrific Labor Day weekend.

My column today highlights a recent conversation with Assemblyman Keith Richman. Keith hits hard at the core of the problems facing our state, identifying the roadblocks and the steps needed to fix them.

Because of what Keith says, this is an important column and I hope you have time to read it.

Thank you.

Posted by sharris at 05:44 PM

Gender differences

Swarthmore College professor Thomas Dee recently released a study showing that boys learn more from men and girls learn more from women. The study went through the proper channels, approved and vetted by his peers.

While the results and certainly any “maybe there are some differences” conclusions will be challenged by the politically correct and sameness crowd, this really isn't a surprise to anyone who has taught or has children and isn’t it time to acknowledge that there are differences between genders, cultures and races?

This doesn’t imply judgment for better or worse, good or bad, positive or negative, just differences. If we don’t acknowledge in our lives what we know in our hearts and our minds to be true, how can we progress?

One of the greatest injustices in recent decades was the feminist movement. NOT, because they wanted equality of opportunity for women, which was long overdue, certainly the right thing to do and still has a ways to go. It was a mistake because so many feminists pushed for sameness, not equality. What 1980’s woman who wore a “man suit” with shoulder pads doesn’t look back at that with a sense of embarrassment? Woman are not men – thank God!

The differences should be embraced, encouraged and relished, not hidden. The sooner we all accept the differences, the sooner we will achieve the admirable goal of equal opportunity for all!

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 02, 2006

This Week in Politics and Policy.

Each week I do a summary of the weeks political and policy events, which is now available in a 500 word column (picked up by as many newspapers as possible), as well as 2-minute radio version, which will be carried by as many stations as possible.

My website now carries these as well. As always, your feedback is encouraged and welcome. Thank you.

Every week we take a quick tour around the great State of California, highlighting what’s new in Sacramento and what’s happening around the state that affects you, your family and your business.

With the two-year-legislative session having closed Thursday, all the action has taken place in Sacramento. Hundreds of bills have been passed, with an equally large number rejected. With the last minute deadlines, many bills will have mistakes and unintended consequences, which may not be discovered for years. Some of the passed bills are hopeful of becoming law and some are certain to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Three of the higher profile bills are expected to be signed by the Governor. The first is the “Global Warming” bill, designed to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25% over the next 14 years. While most Republicans are opposed, the Governor still plans to sign the bill, part of his bipartisan strategy.

While gashouse emissions may be going down, the minimum wage is going up, increasing by a $1.25 to $8 per hour in 2008 in a bill the Governor plans to sign.

Finally, the legislature narrowly approved a bill that turns over some – but not all – control of the Los Angeles Unified School District to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The Governor has said he would sign the legislation, which is then expected to face difficult legal hurdles and is considered by many to be unconstitutional.

While the Democratically controlled legislature has played nice all year with the Republican Governor, launching five massive bond initiatives, adopting a budget on time (last seen in the year 2000), and reaching agreement on a prescription drug plan, the minimum wage and greenhouse gas bills, the November elections are right around the corner, so things are heating up.

The legislature gutted the Governors $6 billion prison construction plan and is sending back its own scaled down $1 billion version. They are also sending the Governor two bills he is certain to veto.
The first of these is another attempt to grant illegal immigrants California drivers licenses. The second is a universal healthcare bill that allows the state to run a single payer healthcare system, insures all Californians and basically eliminates private insurance companies.

The veto of these bills will finally give gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides issues to campaign on, something he desperately needs as the polls this week show him 13 points behind the governor with the governor’s approval rating having jumped 8 points since May.

That’s it for this week. Join me again next week as we continue to follow the never-ending story that is California politics. And remember, California is The Alpha State: the greatest state in the world’s greatest country.

Posted by sharris at 02:57 AM

Winston Churchill

Asked what qualities a politician required, Churchill replied, “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM

September 01, 2006

Exit Exam upheld

A California state appeals court rejected another lawsuit challenging the validity of the high school exit exam. Fridays ruling, against the effort by Californians for Justice Education Fund, was the second – and probably not the last – effort to have the exam thrown out. One has to wonder why these people do not put as much effort into preparing students to pass the exam as they do trying to get them out of it.

Having recently interviewed Chuck Weis, Ventura County Superintendent of Schools, and Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction (and original author of the bill), I know they are both supporters of the exam and believe in the accountability it brings to students – as do I.

Now, if they can only find a way to bring accountability to teachers….

Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM

Wal-Mart

Nobody lovers a boogeyman more than liberals and the flavor of the month is Wal-Mart.

Their crime?

Too efficient, too profitable, too successful. Nothing riles up a self-righteous liberal like some hard earned success and very few companies, if any, are as successful as Wal-Mart.

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden responded to Wal-Mart paying workers $10 an hour by saying “How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

A few things for Mr. Biden and his fellow Wal-Mart bashers should think about. Wal-Mart did not promise a middle class life. $10 an hour is double the federal minimum wage and many of their thousands of employees are second incomes, students, retirees looking to keep busy and those transitioning to another career.

It is well worth remembering that not a single Wal-Mart employee is forced to work there, not is a single Wal-Mart shopper forced to shop there.

If a community truly didn’t want Wal-Mart in their midst, they would refuse to work for them and refuse to shop there. Why won’t that happen? Because, people needs jobs and people love deals and Wal-Mart provides both. They have prices well below anyone else in the industry and that’s important – especially to the low-income families that frequent the stores.

I am reminded of the old Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan movie You’ve Got Mail. We’re supposed to despise Tom Hanks for opening big bad Fox Books superstore and running little quant Shop Around the Corner out of business. However, Hanks did not run her out of business, the community did. He legally opened a competitive business and the community spoke loud and clear – they preferred doing business at the big bookstores.

Wal-Mart is a successful, solid, profitable company. If you don’t like them, don’t work for them and don’t shop there, but don’t pretend that they’re evil and that they owe you anything other than what they promise – a decent job and fairly priced merchandise.

Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM