Home › Blogs › The Alpha State
« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 31, 2006
Governor Reagan
One of the great things about living in Ventura County is the Reagan Library. In addition to the exhibits, we are blessed with a variety of events and speakers. Yesterday combined both.
It was a celebration of the 40-year anniversary of Ronald Reagan first being elected Governor of California. Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke, Nancy Reagan was escorted in by Arnold and Maria and it was a festive and respectful event.
While all speeches are political, this was not a campaign speech by the governor, but rather a tribute to Governor Reagan and was handled tastefully.
Posted by sharris at 10:13 AM
Cheers for Bill Cosby
Bill Cosby has once again come out publicly against conventional – or at least politically correct – wisdom. Cosby was the keynote speaker at the “Education is a Civil Right” forum, organized by Los Angeles black educators.
The core of his speech was that black America cannot continue to lay the blame for high crime and failure at school on white America. For the last couple of years, Cosby has been talking about personal responsibility and parental involvement, decrying a culture that seems to embrace ignorance and “anti-education” as some sort of badge of honor, allows far too many children to grow up without fathers and then lashes out at white America as the cause of it’s problems.
While it is certain that some whites (as well as some blacks) are prejudice it would seem equally certain that poverty and culture play a much larger role in what has to called a crisis.
I can only hope that more leaders – black and white – take a stand against the easy excuse of prejudice and we can begin to focus on the real problem – and real solutions.
Mr. Cosby – pick an office and you have my vote!
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
7 days
One week from today, we are being asked to vote. The stakes are high. 13 propositions, totaling close to $50 billion dollars, governor, senator and a variety of state and local offices.
Unless you are 100% satisfied with every aspect of life in California, find a few minutes and let your voice be heard.
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
October 30, 2006
Brown / Poochigian
I just received a press release from the Poochigian for Attorney General staff. Bottom line is they are accusing Jerry Brown (a number of years ago) of basically ignoring a woman (or group of women) concerns about sexual harassment. He is not actually accused of sexual harassment, but of allowing it to occur under his watch and by a close aide.
The problem with these accusations (always accompanied by a sworn statement from a long forgotten member of the staff, entourage, etc.) is that they cheapen all of us. California Republicans (justifiably so) were outraged when Democrats (and the Los Angeles Times) did this to now Governor Schwarzenegger during the 2003 recall election and it’s certainly not out of the question that it will happen again sometime in the next week.
Where is that outrage now? Why do desperate politicians always resort to this under the “public needs to know what this guy is really like” umbrella? Does this elevate any of us, any cause, any position, anything at all that benefits Californians? Or, does it remind us of low politics and politicians have sunk? It is not party specific – Republicans are doing this one and reveled in the Monica / Clinton affair and Democrats did this to Schwarzenegger and are playing Foley for all it’s worth.
Ideas gentleman. Ideas are what we’re looking for. Add a touch of class; a dash of leadership and you’ll win an election.
Poochigian for Attorney General
Jerry Brown's Cover-Up of Workplace Sexual Harassment Scandal Exposed
Barzaghi Victim Speaks Out on Brown's Knowledge of Harassment
SACRAMENTO - For the first time, Nereyda Lopez-Bowden, former Oakland City Hall employee, this week publicly discussed Mayor Jerry Brown's handling of chronic workplace sexual harassment committed by Brown's top-aide, Jacques Barzaghi [view citations on the Barzaghi sexual harassment scandal]. Lopez-Bowden contacted the Poochigian for Attorney General campaign in response to the Brown campaign's assertion that this demeaning experience was handled professionally by the Mayor and his staff.
Following is a statement by Nereyda Lopez-Bowden:
"I recently learned that my name has been raised during the campaign for California attorney general. I am saddened that Jerry Brown is still questioning the validity of my sexual harassment claim against his closest aide of 32 years, Jacques Barzaghi. It seems that Mayor Brown still doesn't understand the inherent rights that women have to protect themselves in the workplace against such reprehensible conduct. And, unfortunately, he also ignores the many, many other women who came forward stating that they, too, had been harassed by Mr. Barzaghi.
"In November and December of 2000, I was the victim of repeated sexual harassment by Mr. Barzaghi. At the time, the city of Oakland had issued a strong policy against sexual harassment, and I asked merely to have that policy enforced. When it was not, I filed a formal complaint with the city manager. After an extremely trying period when the city tried every means to discredit me personally, Mr. Barzaghi received a "slap on the wrist" and was able to keep his job. What kind of message is that to women who protest against harassment?
"The reason I have come forward now is to inform California voters, and especially women, of Mayor Jerry Brown's tolerance of Mr. Barzaghi's boorish behavior and his refusal to act when informed of it. On one occasion, Mayor Brown asked me to discontinue my protests of Barzaghi's behavior saying: "Why are you doing this to me?" He made it clear that he believed my protests were a threat to his political image - as if he, not I, were the victim.
"On another occasion, the Mayor told me I should just accept Mr. Barzaghi's behavior saying: "Come on, Nereyda, he's French, and he does that with all the women." I want to make it very clear that I informed Mayor Brown of Barzaghi's constant harassment, and he was clearly aware - and therefore accepting - of this behavior.
"On more than one occasion, Mr. Barzaghi threatened that if I did not submit to him I would be fired. I told Mayor Brown that Barzaghi's demands included the request for sexual favors. Again, I asked him to tell Mr. Barzaghi to stop, but Mayor Brown declined to do so. At all times, the workplace environment for me and for several other women was demeaning and humiliating. The women in the office feared Barzaghi because of his close relationship with the mayor. Barzaghi also carried a gun.
"It is my belief that as many as 19 other women came forward in confidence to reveal similar instances of harassment while employed at City Hall. It is also my belief that seven women quit working there because of their desire not to submit to this horrible work environment.
"I have remained silent all these years and intended to continue to do so until I read a statement by Jerry Brown's campaign consultant that Mayor Brown had handled this issue "professionally." I was outraged by that false claim. The demeaning experience I had to go through was anything but professional.
"Thus, I came forward on my own to ensure that the people of California are aware of the character of the man who seeks to be attorney general. It is ridiculous that he would be running for this office as my experience with him left me with the belief that Jerry Brown is unprincipled. I am shocked at Mr. Brown's audacity in running for an enforcement position while he allowed so many woman in his office to be abused, threatened, groped and intimidated on his watch. California should not be subjected to someone so self-centered and insensitive to women and the legal system which protects them in the workplace.
"I emphasize that I initiated the contact with Senator Poochigian's campaign. As difficult and traumatic as this episode has been - and even with the knowledge that Mayor Brown will again personally attack me - I believed it was imperative that I step forward so that Jerry Brown is not politically rewarded for his insulting conduct to me and the other women with whom I worked."
Below is a statement from Senator Chuck Poochigian:
"The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state of California. He is charged with enforcing state laws that protect the rights of workers. He doesn't have a right to ignore, no matter how inconvenient to himself or a buddy, those laws which protect workers from sexual harassment.
"During this campaign, Mayor Brown has made blanket claims that California has 'Hundreds of thousands' even 'millions' of 'exploited' workers and that as attorney general he will vigorously enforce the law by using the lawyers at his disposal to protect workers and go after employers. But as Mayor, Jerry Brown apparently didn't think much of the policy or law regarding serious charges of a hostile work environment and sexual harassment in his own office.
"If Jerry Brown didn't have the strength of character and judgment to ensure the enforcement of vital laws and policies protecting workers' rights even in his own office, how can he be trusted to enforce them for the entire state of California?"
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
Dolz for the 41st? I hope not.
Republican Tony Dolz, a Cuban immigrant and one of the founding members of the Minutemen is running for state assembly in the 41st district. Fran Pavley is termed out and his opponent is Democrat Julia Brownley. Gerrymandering has almost guaranteed Brownley will win, but even if it hadn’t, this comment from Dolz should wrap it up. Speaking about illegal immigrants….
“I will be up late at night dreaming of ways to make their lives miserable so that they can go home to whatever country they came from in the same way they came here: on their own, at their own expense.”
I have had the opportunity to hear Mr. Dolz speak and this statement is not inconsistent with the speech I heard. While I grant we have a problem with illegal immigrants, I would like to think Americans are better than this.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 29, 2006
Weekend media
I was honored this morning when the Daily News ran my column on the front page of their Sunday Viewpoint section. It’s a fun column on what is truly the scariest day of the year – and it might surprise you.
Also, if you haven't caught the radio show recently, please take a listen. Yesterday's guest was political consultant Joel Fox and this upcoming Saturday is Bill Hauck, President of the California Business Roundtable. Their insight into the upcoming election is invaluable.
The radio shows can be heard through my website at AlphaState.org and all my columns can be found there as well.
Posted by sharris at 12:27 PM
Abramoff's next
David Safavian, a former Bush administration official was sentenced this week to 18 months in prison for lying about his role in the Jack Abramoff.
Earlier this week, Jeff Skilling, Enron executive, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for his role in driving Enron out of business and destroying the financial lives of thousands of people.
I find both of these heartening. I wish I was surprised when government officials or top business executives take advantage of their positions to benefit themselves, regardless of the law and the cost to others. There are too many people operating at this level and too much money involved to not expect that some will cross the line.
The heartening thing is that we catch some of them and when we do, they are punished. I think this represents the best in our system.
I am always happy to see the guilty punished, but even more important, I hope that watching Skilling in handcuffs and basically sentenced to life in prison will stop others from following. Not all of course, but some.
The same with Safavian. The next time some mid-level government bureaucrat thinks a free trip to Scotland his somehow due him / her, perhaps they’ll think about 18 months in prison.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
October 26, 2006
46th place
The Census Bureau recently released data regarding high school graduation rates. The report showed the percentage of highs school graduates among those aged 25 or older.
The results showed that California had a higher rate than Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Unfortunately, it showed that we have a lower rate (in some cases, much lower) than the other 46 states.
The world is changing and more than ever, the counties and states that will succeed will do so based on an educated population. California continues to pay little more than lip
service to this inevitability. Our schools are saddled with antiquated teaching methods, an aging infrastructure, bloated administrations, a lack of accountability and are under funded.
Partisan politics continues to fight to a draw and the losers are – everyone. If we stay the course - maybe, just maybe, we can all pull together and leap over Alabama into 45th place!
Posted by sharris at 07:53 AM
October 25, 2006
Support for Israel
I have supported Israel for years and continue to do so. The reasons for this support are similar to most of those who support Israel; democracy in a region without, homeland for Jews, friend to the United States, etc.
The following (as reported in The Week) is an example why. Imagine for a moment any Arab / Muslim country doing something similar for Israel….
Olives are the West Bank’s second biggest export, employing 70,000 people and critical to the Palestinian economy. The last few years the violence between the settlers has severely and negatively impacted crop production.
This summer, Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled that Palestinians must have complete access to their land and crops and directed the Israeli military to provide protection – for the Palestinians. An Israeli commander said, “Our goal is to allow the Palestinians to pick every olive off of the tress.”
I don’t know how to say that in Arabic, but sadly, I doubt that anyone else does either.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
October 24, 2006
Bush profits
The LA Times ran a front-page article Sunday with the headline Bush’s Family Profits From “No Child” Act . President Bush’s brother, Neil, runs the company and his parents (Bush 41) are investors.
The implication seems to be that it’s bad for Neil Bush to run a company that sells products that help school districts reach the goals laid out by the “No Child” act.
It is consistent with the pervasive view that if there is a connection between for profit companies and government officials, there has to be something illegal or unethical happening behind the scenes. No proof is required to establish guilt, only an association.
Why?
Most of us in business prefer to do business with friends and people we know. It makes sense. I certainly support full prosecution of those who benefit illegally, but I’m offended that association equals guilt.
I believe the Times, knowing most readers will read the headline only, should be more responsible – or wait until they have proof that Neil Bush profited illegally – before running a headline like this on the front page.
Posted by sharris at 12:08 AM
October 23, 2006
Register!
Today is the last day for Californians to register to vote for the upcoming November 7th election. The results of the election will impact every Californian, so it’s important to participate.
As citizens of this country and state, we are asked to give very little in exchange for the tremendous opportunities and protections we are afforded. There are no excuses for not voting.
7 statewide offices, 13 ballot propositions, 20 state senators, 1 United States Senator, 53 congresspeople and 80 assemblypeople, along with thousands of city councilpeople, county supervisors, boards of education, etc are to be decided. Help make the decision.
Posted by sharris at 12:05 AM
Ethics?
In case you missed it last week, Gil Garcetti, president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, agreed to pay a large fine for - you guessed it - ethics violations.
Garcetti made an improper contribution, wait for it – to his son and - it gets better - then blamed his wife.
Sometimes these are so good, you can’t make them up and it there is really nothing to add☺
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 22, 2006
Weller convicted
George Weller was convicted this week of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Three years ago Mr. Weller raced his car through a Santa Monica farmers market, killing 10 and injuring more than 70.
In April of this year, I wrote a column about Mayvis Coyle, an 82-year-old woman, who had received a $114 ticket from a Los Angeles Police Department officer for taking too long to cross a busy intersection. The following paragraph from my column generated more negative response than anything I have written, before or since….
The simple truth is that Ms. Coyle is no longer physically able to walk across a busy 5-lane street without creating a dangerous situation for herself and others. It would have been appropriate and kind for someone to have told this to Ms. Coyle before the incident. Perhaps someone has, and Ms. Coyle has refused to accept the truth.
I was blasted for being insensitive, for not respecting ‘elderly rights”, etc, etc, etc. The bottom line is that age is eventually debilitating for all of us. Reflexes slow, eyesight weakens and the chance of hurting yourself or others goes up. It starts at different ages for each of us, but denying it inevitability is silly and dangerous. Mr. Weller’s devastation on so many reminds us of this unavoidable, undeniable fact.
I hope it opens the eyes of many who insist that acknowledging the realties of age someone makes one an “ageist”, when in fact, it makes them a realist. While it may have been hard for Mr. Weller to hear three years ago – as he should have – that he was no longer capable of driving safely, it seems a small price to pay for saving the lives that were lost and destroyed.
Posted by sharris at 12:12 AM
Navy Seal
While the story is a week old, it is also timeless. Navy Seal, Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor jumped on a grenade and saved the other three members of his four-man team. He died as a result of the wounds.
The selflessness of this act is almost beyond belief and the courage required is almost unimaginable, at least to me. This was not a movie, it was not theoretical - it was real. Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor made a conscious decision to trade his life for that of three fellow Navy Seals. I believe it represents the very best of America and of our fighting men and women. My thanks to Michael Monsoor and my prayers to his family. We need more men and women like Michael Monsoor and less opportunities for them to be tested.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 21, 2006
Pigs are flying
You know it’s a crazy week in California politics and bad news for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides when the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times endorse Governor Schwarzenegger for reelection and Willie Brown – the states iconic Democratic - announces – to a crowd of Democrats - that Schwarzenegger will win reelection “no matter what”.
I think hell, if not freezing, has certainly dropped a few degrees.
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
October 20, 2006
Absentee voting
It seems the easier we make voting, the less likely people are to vote. June’s primary turnout in California was terrible, roughly 1/3 of the registered voters (and why isn’t everyone registered?) bothered to vote.
November 7th’s election is predicted to have a very small turnout and this with 13 ballot propositions, 7 statewide offices, all 53 congressional seats, 20 state senate seats and all 80-assembly seats up for grabs.
20 years ago, 9% of those who voted did so by absentee ballots. June’s primary was at 47% and it’s predicted that of those who vote in the November 7th election, more than half (including me) will do so by absentee. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as we continue to try and making voting “easier” less and less people bother to do it.
As I have written before, I think the goal of more voters is slightly off target. The goal should be more educated voters. While my view that voting is a privilege, not a right and should be earned, not given has yet to gain critical mass, I anticipate that at some point there will be a backlash. As a professional marketer, I can tell you there is a direct correlation between cost / investment and value and the easier we make voting, the less it is valued by the masses.
Voting should be an honor, not an American Idol pop culture event.
Posted by sharris at 07:41 AM
Judicial pendulum swinging
Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you probably feel that some judges have crossed the line from enforcing the law to creating new law – legislating from the bench. Just as one persons’ special interest group is another persons’ advocacy group, one persons’ judge run amuck is another persons’ judge finally bringing long overdue justice.
Not surprisingly, there is some backlash to these actions and November’s election (nationwide) has quite a few judicial power ballot measures. Most of these have been initiated and supported by conservatives, who feel more strongly that the judicial system has been perverted to reflect the demands of ‘fringe” positions.
Ballot measures include…
A Colorado effort to be the nation’s first to impose term limits on top judges
South Dakota's effort would allow citizens to sue judges
Montana’s initiative is asking for the right to recall judges
Oregon would begin electing judge by district
California’s Prop 90 would move some parts of eminent domain conflicts away from judges and to juries
While it is virtually impossible for judges to not be viewed politically, I believe it is very dangerous to turn judges into politicians. Allowing them to be sued, recalled and having to campaign by district all point toward attempting to satisfy public opinion, rather than being able to independently interpret and enforce the law.
The dangers here are similar to those with direct democracy. The more subject elected officials – and now judges – are to fads, popular opinion and “moods”, the less likely they are to think about the future and making the right decision and the more likely they are to bend to the prevailing winds.
This country was founded on the principles of representative democracy and an independent judicial branch. Continued efforts to undermine both are extremely dangerous and should be reconsidered.
Posted by sharris at 07:31 AM
October 19, 2006
Married couples
USA Today reports that of the 50 congressional districts nationwide that have the highest rates of married couples, Republicans represent 49 of them in Congress. At the same time, Democrats represent all 50 districts with the highest rate of adults who have never married.
I don’t think the numbers will surprise many and I imagine both parties are pleased with the distribution.
Posted by sharris at 12:04 AM
October 18, 2006
Social Engineering – Big Apple style
New York City, home to almost 25,000 restaurants and at least as many quirky ideas, has now banned trans fatty acids. I admit I don’t know much about trans fatty acids and it appears reasonable certain that they’re not good for you.
However, lots of things aren’t good for you, which in an ironic way, sometimes makes them good for you. Chicago has banned foie gras and is considering joining New York in banning trans fatty acids.
How Orwellian do we want our local governments to get?
If I choose to eat unhealthy foods, smoke, maybe take a drink or two, isn’t that my prerogative? Do we really want the government telling us what we can and cannot eat? Where does this stop? Will there be mandatory exercise programs, legal calorie limits or monthly weigh in programs?
Why is that the same people who won’t budge on their liberties in an effort to make the country safer, will throw any freedom out the window in the name of “health”.
Frankly, if I want to eat a duck, have a little trans fatty acid, an after dinner drink and a nice cigar – why the heck not? !
Posted by sharris at 12:09 AM
Centrist idea - CAPC
I have attached a press release from a new organization, The California Association of Political Centrists. Because I believe strongly that the future of our state lies in working toward the center and encouraging moderates from both parties, I support the motives and efforts of organizations like CAPC. The press release gives additional details and information, but it’s another positive step in motivating Democrats and Republicans to at least consider moderates. While it’s initial focus is on Ventura County, perhaps it will catch on in other places. One step at a time!
The California Association of Political Centrists (CAPC) announces it has organized in response to the growing numbers of California voters that feel that their priorities and concerns need to be better served by their elected officials. The organizers believe that the current government structure is dominated by extremists in the two major political parties, and by legislators in safe elective seats with insufficient accountability. CAPC is a non-partisan political association that supports candidates and governmental reforms that promote the common good. Its mission is to foster “across the aisle” cooperation and true representation of the voting majority viewpoint at the local and state level.
CAPC believes it is the duty of government representatives to work with fellow elected officials at all levels for the public good. CAPC is dedicated to supporting candidates and legislation that provide reasonable and pragmatic solutions to the myriad of issues current facing Californians. It supports needed government reform such as open primaries and redistricting.
CAPC is opposed to the undue influence of special interest groups in the making of public policy.
Leslie Cornejo, CAPC Chairman, is pleased and honored that so many local Ventura County community leaders have joined her in the CAPC mission. Cornejo states, “clearly, there are many Californians that are frustrated by the excessively partisan battles over issues that affect all our lives. We’ve nearly lost all civility and reason in politics. Now the centrist Republicans, the centrist Democrats and many decline-to-state voters have an association for cooperation and information, and have the numbers to ultimately dominate politics in California.”
Katie Teague, President of the Ventura County Chapter, believes that CAPC will provide a mechanism for Ventura County voters to make intelligent choices regarding their candidates. She believes that the “public needs a voice which isn’t being supported by the current political structures” and that “CAPC will encourage better candidate selection by focusing on the wide political center instead of the marginal extremes.” She believes that CAPC will have a positive impact on the 2007/2008 election cycle for Ventura County representation locally and in Sacramento. “The 2008 elections and events leading up to it promise to be very interesting times not only for the political junkies like me, but for everyone newly involved in the process."
CAPC endorses candidates that support the mission statement and are interested in the welfare and improvement of the quality of life in California. CAPC will be making endorsements for this year’s election cycle at the local level, focusing primarily on the non-partisan races.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
Sonoma Index-Tribune
I am excited to announce that the Sonoma Index-Tribune is now carrying my weekly column and ran the first one yesterday.
I look forward to developing a relationship with the readers of the Sonoma Index Tribune and expect to learn quite a bit from their input. Thank you for this opportunity.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
October 17, 2006
Proposition 1A
This is the Transportation Funding Protection initiative. This is an easy proposition to vote yes for and at the same time, perfectly illustrates one of the major downfalls of direct democracy.
In 2002 Californians voted for Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act. Prop 42 required that effective July 1, 2003, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes as provided by law until June 30, 2008.
The problem is that none of the money we voted go to transportation, actually goes to transportation. It turned out to be simply an increase in taxes that through various “emergency clauses” go directly to the general fund.
We are now being asked to support Prop 1A which is basically designed to make sure that Prop 42 (which we supported in 2002 because we didn’t trust our legislators to do the right thing) goes into effect and once again circumvents our state legislators.
Of course Sacramento’s short term thinking and failure to implement Prop 42 has also led to Prop 1B, the $19 billion dollar transportation bond. It’s a vicious cycle of not controlling our legislators – which is the key problem – and then doing a bad job of neutralizing them at the ballot box.
My recommendation? Hold your nose, vote yes on 1A and start focusing your attention on doing a better job of electing qualified candidates and less time trying to neuter them with bad initiatives.
Posted by sharris at 07:32 AM
Social Engineering can be quite the pisser
Conservatives are often attacked by liberals for constantly harkening back to the good old days and not embracing positive social change. When the majority of Americans falls into this bracket, liberals simply find a supportive judge and push their agenda through the legal system.
In these ideological battles, Western Europe is frequently upheld as the progressive ideal, embracing change with an enlightened attitude.
However, for those of us who fear that social engineering can go too far, a school in Norway can be used as an example. An elementary school in Norway has now ordered its male students to pee sitting down, forbidding them from peeing standing up. Principal Anne Lise Gjul complains that young men can have bad aim, making the work of the janitors more challenging.
While a number of appropriate protests come to mind, I believe I’ll let the irony speak for itself☺
No report on the planned uses of the existing urinals.
Posted by sharris at 12:28 AM
October 16, 2006
Ronald Reagan
Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.
Posted by sharris at 12:05 AM
United States Senate
I am supporting incumbent Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein. While I do not support some of the Senator’s positions, she certainly benefits by comparison to our junior Senator, Barbara Boxer. There have been enough times where she has taken a position that shows she is not knee jerk partisan and I think it’s a mistake to throw away a Senator with the years of experience that she has. Frankly, the idea of hearing even once – the senior Senator from California, Barbara Boxer - would keep me up at night.
Add to that the fact that her Republican challenger, Dick Mountjoy, has made no headway, generated no traction and is running a sub par campaign does not have me running to support him.
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
October 15, 2006
Attorney General
I am voting for Republican Chuck Poochigian and I hope he wins. He has a solid, but unspectacular, background and the support of people I respect.
It would almost not matter who the Republicans are running as long as Jerry Brown is the Democratic candidate. Brown is a lifetime and brilliant politician. He has been governor before, is currently termed out as Oakland’s Mayor and three times has run unsuccessfully for president. He campaigned hard against Prop 13, but within weeks of it’s 1978 victory he had most of the state convinced it was his idea. He is against the death penalty, though he vows to uphold the law.
2010 is another reason I will not be voting for Jerry Brown. That is when Governor Schwarzenegger will be termed out, the Republicans to date (though four years is a long way away) have no strong bench and we are looking at the possibility of Jerry Brown running for Governor.
However, for anyone still considering voting for Jerry Brown, please remember this, he is the man who while Governor, appointed Rose Bird to be Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court .
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
October 14, 2006
Insurance Commissioner
I am supporting Republican Steve Poizner over Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante for Insurance Commissioner. Two reasons…
First, Poizner is the only candidate of the major 14 (seven statewide offices, one Dem and one Rep per office) that is not termed out of one office and looking for another job, or an incumbent holding on. I like that.
Second, Bustamante is dishonest. He promised to stop accepting campaign contributions from insurance companies and to return money that he had already accepted.
Instead, he continues to accept the contributions and while returning some of the money, he is actually using the money to pay off his failed 2003 gubernatorial bid debt. When questioned about this, Bustamante responded…
“ This is not promoting me to run for insurance commissioner…I was paying bills from 2003.”
This from a man who already has the distinction of the largest fine for campaign finance irregularities in the history of California.
Bottom line, I don’t trust Bustamante to do anything, but certainly not to be Insurance Commissioner.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
Cigar bar story
Earlier this week, my son and I went to a cigar bar for a cigar, a cold beer, to
watch the baseball playoffs and for a little companionship.
As the evening wore down, there were eight of us left watching the game. As good conversations do, this one meandered its way over a variety of subjects and eventually landed on country of origin. My son and I were both born in the United States, but turns out we were the only ones.
2 were born in Wales, 1 in England, 1 in Nicaragua, I in Mexico and 1 in Iran. All of us loved this country and expect for a traveling Welshman, all live here. Everyone there loved the United States and what it stands for. It struck me that the feeling of love for this country and the patriotism shown that night is something that we don’t see often enough. Perhaps it’s true that those of us born to the freedom and opportunity that America offers sometimes lose sight of just how rare and valuable it is. Or perhaps, baseball fans – from any country – are more patriotic☺ Either way, it was an enlightening and enjoyable evening.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 13, 2006
Treasurer
The choice is between our current (and termed out) Attorney General, Democrat Bill Lockyer and little know Republican Claude Parrish, termed out of the Board of Equalization.
This is another office that is not well known and is probably viewed by Lockyer as a stepping-stone on his way to bigger office and a toehold for Parrish into the big leagues.
My vote will be for Claude Parrish and the reasons are their stated positions as found on the League of Woman Voters site .
Parrish lists as his three priorities….
Save millions of dollars by eliminating New York middlemen.
Allow Californians to buy federal & state tax-exempt bonds in amounts as little as $100 in a savings bond-type program.
Oppose all but the most critical of bond issues.
The first one is fine, the second one is a good idea and the third one is a great idea and a deal maker for me. The less we borrow, the less we have to pay back and we actually run the risk of learning to live within our means. Contrast this with Lockyers stated priorities…
Obtaining the highest possible return on public investments and helping restore the state budget to long-term fiscal health.
Planning and managing financial investments in public education, transportation and water to keep CA livable, grow our economy and produce good jobs.
Ensuring retirement security and good health care for every Californian.
The first one is fine, the second one is a good idea and the third one sounds like social engineering and a deal breaker for me.
Let’s let the legislature make policy and the have the Treasurer focus on fiscal prudence.
It is worth noting that the candidate I support was washed out in the primaries – Assemblyman Keith Richman. Our loss.
Posted by sharris at 12:12 AM
October 12, 2006
Star’s dangerous editorial
The Ventura County Star ran a dangerous editorial today, supporting Prop 87. It is not surprising that the Star supports another focused tax, but they give two reasons and both are dangerous. Before they even go into their two reasons, they make a startling comment…
It’s time for oil companies to begin paying their rightful share.
Is there a formula that the Star has that the rest of us are unaware of? How did they determine what the oil companies’ fair share is? Is it simply a matter of taxing all successful industries (how about Indian casinos) until they are no longer profitable? Or, is this simply a feel good, “we don’t like paying $3 gallon, so someone is going to pay” measure. Does the Star not see the anti-capitalist irony of forcing a legal, successful profitable industry to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to develop a technology designed to drive them out of business?
Now, for their two stated reasons….
First, this natural resource they are pulling from the earth is not solely theirs; it belongs to all Californians.
Obviously, this is wrong. The oil actually does belong to the oil companies, just as some stretches of timber belong to paper companies and some beachfront property belongs to private homeowners. We may not like it, but is it both true and legal. Even in California, we are not constitutionally guaranteed $1 dollar per gallon gasoline (which seems to be the underlying motivation for the Star’s position) and to make a statement like this is simply responsible.
Second, they can afford it.
This is the basis of the Star’s anti-capitalist position. It is the anti-Wal-Mart, anti-success, anti-capitalism mentality. It is used to attack individual businesses (Wal-Mart), industries (oil) or wealthy individuals. It is a way of punishing those who are more successful than others. They have it; we want it, let’s tax it and distribute it to those we think should have it. It is very difficult to separate this position from socialism and it is dangerous for a newspaper to make such irresponsible statements.
Posted by sharris at 08:08 AM
California Chamber of Commerce
I had an excellent interview yesterday with Allan Zaremberg, President and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce.
While we discussed the Chamber’s role in California politics and Mr. Zaremberg’s reaction to charges that the Chamber is simply a special interest group for large businesses, the focus of the conversation was the upcoming election.
The Chamber is endorsing Governor Schwarzenegger for reelection, only the second time they have endorsed a candidate. The first time was in 2003 when they also endorsed the now Governor Schwarzenegger. Mr. Zaremberg explains why (think Bustamante and Angelides) they thought it was important enough to support the Governor that they waived their nonpartisan policy of not endorsing candidates.
He then discusses why the Chamber supports the “infrastructure package”, propositions 1A through 1E and Prop 84, even though it means burdening the state with almost $40 billion dollars of new debt.
He also explains why the Chamber is against the four tax propositions; 86 (cigarette), 87 (oil), 88 (parcel) and 89 (taxpayer funding of campaigns).
The Chamber’s positions are 100% consistent with the Governor and regarding 1A-1E, also consistent with the Democratic leadership in the state. It is worth noting that the state’s leading voice for traditional conservative positions, State Senator (and candidate for Lieutenant Governor) Tom McClintock is against all of the bond measures, except for 1E, the levee bond.
The interview is worth listening to as Mr. Zaremberg does a good job of outlining the business communities’ point of view on these issues and why he – and the Chamber – believe following their recommendations is good for the state.
Posted by sharris at 12:02 AM
October 11, 2006
Winston Churchill
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping that it will eat him last.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
October 10, 2006
Streisand
I believe the following news story says far more about Barbra Streisand and her supporters than it does the president….
NEW YORK (AP) - The most riveting moment of Barbra Streisand's Madison Square Garden concert was one of the only unscripted ones.
Streisand endured jeers as she interjected a political skit into Monday night's show, exchanging zingers with a celebrity impersonator playing George Bush as a bumbling idiot.
Though most of the crowd offered polite applause during the slightly humorous routine, it went on a bit too long, especially for those who just wanted to hear Streisand sing.
"Come on, be polite!" the well-known liberal implored. But one heckler wouldn't let up. And finally, Streisand let him have it.
"Shut the (expletive) up!" Streisand bellowed, drawing wild applause. "Shut up if you can't take a joke!"
With that one F-word, the jeers ended. And the message was delivered - no one gets away with trying to upstage Barbra Streisand, especially not in her hometown.
Posted by sharris at 09:45 AM
$400 million and climbing
This is the current estimate as to how much has been raised already for California campaign spending. Most certainly, more will be raised and spent between now and November and some think we may cross the $500 million – half a billion – dollar threshold.
While I don’t usually subscribe to the “one less tank would mean XX more books” theory, it certainly crosses my mind that there might be more productive uses of $500 million dollars.
$100 million of this will be spent exclusively on Prop 87, the oil tax. $40 million of that has come from a single individual – Hollywood producer Stephen Bing.
Politics is big business and nowhere is it bigger than California. It is a given that the volume of spending will generate cries of campaign reform and undue influence.
Let me go on record with what I’m certain will be a minority position. I love special interests and do not want to see restrictions on them. These are the people (Bing, Reiner, etc.), and organizations (CTA, Chamber, etc.) that are committed to a point of view and willing to invest in furthering their cause. Are there motives altruistic? No. Are they self-serving? Yes. So what? They are the people who give us information and yes, some of it is misleading and some of it is wrong. They generate passion, discussion, debate and awareness. It is our job as voters to filter through the information and make our decisions. If you don’t like the direction a certain group or individual is taking, fight it, change it, join an opposing special interest group or start a special interest group. Do something besides complain.
What is the alternative?
Posted by sharris at 07:38 AM
October 09, 2006
Joel Fox / Prop 13
Three years ago, Joel Fox, former President of the Howard Jarvis taxpayers Association, wrote a terrific book about Prop 13 – The Legend of Proposition 13, The Great California Tax Revolt.
With the increasing important in California of direct democracy, it is well worth reading. The book is short, informative and powerful and Prop 13, both the process that brought it to us and the impact it has had are no less important today than they were in 1978.
Enjoy!
Posted by sharris at 07:02 AM
Ronald Reagan
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Posted by sharris at 12:04 AM
October 08, 2006
NAACP shows it’s true colors
The NAACP has followed lawsuit against The Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic in Spring Valley, New York.
Why? The clinic is run by Jews and closed on Saturdays.
Angle? The clinic receives millions in federal dollars, so the NAACP claims that by closing on Saturday they are imposing their religious beliefs on the black and Hispanic clientele – who are presumably not Jewish.
Proves? The NAACP has run out of important things to do.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 07, 2006
Charles Krauthammer
Regular readers know I am a fan of Charles Krauthammer, his writing and more important, his thought process. He is usually a voice of reason when few others exist. he has written a terrific column about our pre war and current safety with regards to terrorism. Read the entire column if you can, but if not, take a look at the following....
The question posed -- does the Iraq War increase or decrease the world supply of jihadists? -- is itself an exercise in counting angels on the head of a pin. Any answer would require a complex calculation involving dozens of unmeasurable factors, as well as constructing a complete alternate history of the world had the U.S. invasion of 2003 not happened.
Ah, but those seers in the U.S. ``intelligence community,'' speaking through a leaked National Intelligence Estimate -- the most famous previous NIE, mind you, concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, slam dunk -- have peered deep into the hypothetical past and found the answer. As spun by Iraq War critics, the conclusion is that Iraq has made us less safe because it has become a ``cause celebre'' and rallying cry for jihad.
Become? Everyone seems to have forgotten that Iraq was already an Islamist cause celebre and rallying cry long before 2003.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
California State Controller
This is a difficult decision. As I have stated before, I believe it most prudent to cast my vote for one of the two main party candidates. In this case, the choice is between Tony Strickland, termed out as a State Assemblyman and John Chiang, termed out as a member of the State Board of Equalization. Unfortunately, the difficulty is not in choosing between two excellent candidates, but rather between two weak candidates.
I am going to vote for Tony Strickland, primarily out of concern for how John Chiang might use his office. In a recent article in the Central Valley Business Times , John talked about his support for Prop 87 (the oil tax), which I oppose and the social engineering motivation for his support. Frankly, I get concerned about him bringing these motivations to the job of controller and those concerns are deep enough to keep me from voting for him. Eliminating Chiang and the minor party candidates and I’m left with Tony Strickland.
For those who are unfamiliar with the responsibilities of the controller’s office, click continue below and you’ll find them listed.
Responsibilities of the Controller’s office.
The Controller is the Chief Financial Officer of California, the sixth largest economy in the world. He helps administer $300 billion in state pension funds and serves on 62 state boards and commissions. These are charged with duties ranging from protecting our coastline to helping build hospitals. The Controller is the state’s independent fiscal watchdog, providing sound fiscal control over more than $100 billion in receipts and disbursements of public funds a year, offering fiscal guidance to local governments and uncovering fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Account for and control disbursement of all state funds.
Determine legality and accuracy of every claim against the State.
Issue warrants in payment of the State's bills including lottery prizes.
Administer the Uniform State Payroll System.
Audit and process all personnel and payroll transactions for state civil service; exempt employees; state university and college system employees.
Responsible for auditing various state and local government programs.
Inform the public of the State's financial condition.
Administer the Unclaimed Property Law.
Inform the public of financial transactions of city, county and district governments.
Administer Property Tax Postponement Program.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
October 06, 2006
Teacher merit pay
It is my belief that the single largest stumbling block keeping the state from working more closely together on the critical issue of public education is merit pay.
It is easy for liberals to hide behind “more money, no merit” and for conservatives to hide behind “no merit, no money”. It allows them to dance around the issues of how much funding, how should it be spent and what are we teaching our children.
In the meantime, teachers, administration, parents, future employers and most important – the children – suffer. If you pay bad teachers the same thing you pay good teachers, the motivation for excellence and growth is severely and negatively impacted. To think otherwise is naïve and dangerous. I have all the respect in the world for those who choose teaching as a profession, but it is a profession, not an altruistic venture. As such, rewarding those who exceed – or at least meet – expectations is necessary.
This is why it is so disappointing that the State of California continues to bow to the most powerful political force in the state – the California Teachers Association – and continues to run away from the issue of merit pay. I recently interviewed State Superintendent of Public Education Jack O’Connell, who offered support for the idea of merit pay, but has not yet found a system he is willing to implement, even on a test basis.
Other states are making an effort. Florida has committed $147.5 million dollars to a new program, STAR (Special Teachers Are Rewarded), that rewards teachers financially for reaching certain benchmarks.
Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas also have programs in place. Even the Federal Government has committed almost $100 million dollars through the Teachers Incentive Fund to encourage incentive pay programs.
I applaud O’Connell for his courage in leading the fight (after writing the initial legislation) for the high school exit exam. He has stood strong in the face of strong opposition and is leading the way to bring accountability to students. The system he has established is not perfect and is being reviewed and tweaked, but it’s in place and having a positive impact.
Superintendent O’Connell – why not show the same courage and leadership in implementing a merit pay program? Test it, tweak it, roll it out slowly – but do something. It is the easiest political dodge in the world to support an idea in concept but not in practice. Pleas bring the same accountability to the teachers that you have brought to those they teach.
Posted by sharris at 12:05 AM
October 05, 2006
Lieutenant Governor
I will be voting for the Republican candidate, State Senator Tom McClintock. The reasons are as follows…
1. I had a chance to spend some time with Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi during the height of the workers’ comp crisis. His knowledge of the issue and his unwillingness / inability to help was appalling.
2. Tom McClintock is the strongest conservative voice in the state. With a moderate / left leaning governor and a strongly liberal legislature, I believe we need Tom for balance.
3. Tom McClintock has shown strength of character and commitment to California that has been sorely lacking in this office for a while. It is my hope that he can use this office as a podium to lead discussions and even debates on some of the critical issues of our time.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
Secretary of State
I will be voting to reelect the incumbent, Republican Bruce McPherson. The reasons are as follows…
1. When nominated by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, he was confirmed by every legislator in Sacramento – Democrat and Republican.
2. He is endorsed by the California Teachers Association. How often does that happen with a Republican?
3. To my knowledge, there have been no Florida, Ohio-like fiascos in the state, during a time when every loser seems to want to challenge the results. This is a huge state and it takes time to learn the systems. Let’s capitalize on the time he already has in office, as well as his bipartisan support.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
Winston Churchill
The inherit vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherit vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
October 04, 2006
November 7th election
I have been asked to share my position on the statewide offices and propositions coming up on November 7th. I have long complained about endorsements from those who don’t disclose their prejudices, so now that I’m prepared to offer my views, it seems only fair that I first share my personal leanings that clearly will impact my choices.
First, I am not an active member of either major party and have in the past been registered in both. While my personal views – especially fiscally – lean toward conservative, I am no happier with the Republican Party than I am with the Democrats.
Second, I am not a big supporter – with rare exceptions - of direct democracy. This means that I start from a position of not supporting initiatives and have to be convinced to change that position.
Last, I lean strongly toward not voting to impose additional taxes or bonds on myself and feel equally strong about imposing them on others, either in the form of sin (cigarette) or income (get the wealthy!) taxes.
This being said, I will, between now and the election, take a position on each of the seven statewide offices and thirteen initiatives.
I fully expect to have my views (and my sanity) challenged and look forward to the conversation.
Thank you!
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
Governor
I will be voting to reelect the incumbent, Governor Schwarzenegger. The reasons are as follows…
1. The challenger, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, has presented no new programs or ideas that I support. I respect his candor in announcing the multiple planned tax increases, but I don’t support the increases. I certainly don’t support his attempt at foreign policy and the sleazy way he has tried to turn this into a battle between himself and President Bush.
2. The Governor in recent months seems to have learned to work with the Democratically controlled state legislature and since the legislature will still be controlled by Democrats on November 8th, having someone who can and will work with them, while at the same time, will not drive the state even further to the left seems to be a good balance.
3. If the governor continues to grow and mature into the job, it’s quite possible he’ll be able to turn the state around and begin to deal with some of the major issues that Sacramento continues to ignore; education, immigration, infrastructure, healthcare and election reform.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
October 03, 2006
Foley and Hastert
Let me open by stating that I believe our elected officials, certainly at the national level, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. In saying that, it follows logically that Florida Rep. Mark Foley should have resigned when it was revealed he had sent sexually explicit emails to an under age male page.
This continues the bad streak that Republicans are on (Jack Abramoff, Dick Cunningham, etc.) and will likely have an impact on November’s elections – as perhaps it should.
I normally do not hold a party liable for the actions of an individual, as long as the individual is properly dealt with. Republicans forced Foley out and that could have been the end of it.
However, a statement issued by House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office has revealed an even uglier and more dangerous side to this affair. From the AP….
Hastert said his top aides and Rep. John Shimkus, a fellow Illinois Republican overseeing the page program, acted appropriately by trying to resolve the matter as an internal GOP problem rather than mounting a more formal investigation that would have involved Democrats.
What? !!!
This is not a party issue, this is an American issue. A United States Congressman crossed a legal, ethical and moral line and the House Speaker categorizes this as “an internal GOP problem." This brings to the forefront and confirms what many already believe about our elected officials (and while this is a Republican incident, it is certainly prevalent in both parties) – that they put nothing, not ethics, morality, their constituents or even the country – ahead of party politics and party power.
It validates the lowest possible opinion of the men and women we elect.
While I rarely agree with demands for the resignation of party officials for an act of an individual, in this case, I agree with those demanding that Hastert resign. He has publicly revealed and confirmed what many of us feared and with all due respect to the young pages (and it’s almost certain more will be revealed), Hastert’s view is the most dangerous and frightening aspect of this incident.
Posted by sharris at 08:41 AM
Feeling like a target
My column Sunday in the Ventura County Star has generated quite a few responses. As is almost always the case, the responses have been thoughtful and well written. As is always the case, I have learned from my readers and appreciate the feedback.
However, this particular column – and its discussion of the 2nd Amendment – has also generated quite a few responses from readers that I do not normally hear from. I thought it might be enlightening to share some of their comments. In fairness to the reader – and probably surprising some of those whose comments you’ll see below – I am a gun owner.
YOU ARE A POMPOUS JACKASS! you need to study a little further. READ ALL THE EXCERPTS FROM ALL THE DEBATES STUPID LIFETIME MEMBER NRA
Whether one owns a derringer, a scoped hunting rifle, or a belt fed machine gun is irrelevant.
I had the misfortune to read your ill-informed piece about the 2nd amendment and man I fail to see how you could be more wrong
…but to those of us who know more than the average public school student, we see right past your selective readings and manipulative ramblings.
I believe you may need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills and also the Constitution.
I would encourage you to avail youself of a dictionary and look up infringed.
Sorry, Scott, but the clear purpose for the 2nd Amendment is to give Americans the means to overthrow our government should it become necessary.
Nice try, wrong answer, thanks for playing.
Of course this is all written with the understanding that you were making honest mistakes and not purposefully trying to mislead readers through manipulation of facts and opinion in order to further your own anti-gun agenda.
Scott, you are incorrect. It is just unfortunate that you have the forum to influence many while the true followers of freedom must use targeted e-mail.
Posted by sharris at 07:33 AM
October 02, 2006
Youthful passion
My essay yesterday on the Constitution has generated quite a bit of response. One was a long note from a 19 year old student. I have included my response and after sending it asked for and received permission to print the note from Mr. O'Connor.
As I state below, I do not agree with everything he writes, but I certainly admire the passion and the effort.
Mr. O’Connor,
You are obviously educated and passionate, qualities I admire in a man. It may surprise to know that I am not a religious man and might have written this exact same note (had I been as eloquent as you) when I was 19. I agree with you about the dangers of a state religion, but in no way support that as a goal. I disagree with your assessment of Islam and Christianity, as Christianity seems to have matured, while Islam, or at least it’s practitioners, have not.
I believe the Founding Fathers to be the most brilliant and insightful assemblage of man in history and yet many of the great questions perplexed even them – religion and government, role of women, slavery, etc. Their brilliance was in their willingness to try and to set us on a path that we are even today still walking.
I ask your permission to publish your note (with or without your name, your choice) on my blog. Your points are thoughtful, articulate and made without anger and while I disagree with many, it would be enlightening for my readers. Please let me know.
Mr. Harris,
This is my response to your recent article in the
East County paper.
First, I'd like to point out that I agree with you
in that a literal interpretation of the Constitution
in its entirety is not only unpractical, but can at
times be dangerous. However, I've several qualms with
your article, mainly focused on your thoughts on
religion in the Constitution.
You believe, as I do, that the Constitution was
meant to be a flexible doctrine, advancing with the
ages and catering to the needs of the people. However,
you are then quick to state that the Founding Fathers
would have not removed "under God" from the Pledge of
Allegiance, stripped Christmas decorations, etc. These
two ideas (that the Constitution was meant to be
flexible but that we should adhere to the ideas you
think the Founding Fathers had about religion) seem
sublimely contradictory to me. We live in a world in
which potentially good people are firebombing abortion
clinics, ridiculing and even killing homosexuals
because of what they do with their genitals, and
blowing themselves up in public squares, throwing the
whole world in a spin. If there is a word out there to
describe these people, it is not crazy,
fundamentalist, or extremist, but rather, pious.
Clearly stated in these books are the instructions to
carry out the horrible things that these pious people
are doing. It is fairly obvious that the writers of
the Bible or Koran had not the foresight of our
Founding Fathers to write a flexible doctrine (unless
they wanted constant mass murder, humiliation,
mockery, genocide, discrimination, etc...in which
case, they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, I
imagine).
Of course, when our country was founded, the Dark
Ages (time in which theocracy held power over Europe)
were not far behind us- it should be recognized that
the Spanish Inquisition was still in effect during the
founding of our country. But even with the violent
dogmas of the Bible ruling over the majority of the
European world, our Founding Fathers decided to not
include a mention of God anywhere in the Constitution,
and, in fact, provided this revelation to a
God-fearing a startled public: "All governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Of course, still spinning from the truly
un-enlightened times that preceded theirs, the people
must have been worried about this- God was to have no
part in their governing? It was surely terrifying.
You also say that atheists and secularists have
pointed to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association for supporting 'their effort to eliminate
God from the public sector'. While this is true, let
me provide you with some other evidence atheists and
secularist may have found enlightening on this subject
(provided by none other than the Founding Fathers):
Benjamin Franklin:
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in
life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."
one of my favorites of Franklin's:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support
itself; and when it does not support itself, and God
does not take care to support it so that its
professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad
one."
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
(Franklin's words are famously misquoted throughout
the internet now, especially from his autobiography- a
book which points to his early years, raised as a
Christian. Franklin, as the framer of the constitution
as we know him, is not portrayed in these pages
dealing with the first few years of his life)
James Madison's personal view on religion, not what he
saw as past precedent:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal
establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has
been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride
and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, Famous Atheist &
Quotessuperstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians
of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind
and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical
establishments had on civil society? In many instances
they have been upholding the thrones of political
tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the
guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who
wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the
clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not
need the clergy."
John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds,
Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads
of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered
with in these days?"
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if
there were no religion in it."
Thomas Jefferson, who it seems had more than his fair
share of reasons for removing God from the public
sector, not in the least limited to ONE letter:
"History I believe furnishes no example of a
priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil
government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance,
of which their political as well as religious leaders
will always avail themselves for their own purpose. "
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually
the same god as the many ancient gods of past
civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes
to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like
god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people
who say they serve him. They are always of two
classes: fools and hypocrites."
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since
the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not
advanced one inch towards uniformity."
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of
Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb
of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the
generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may
we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought
in these United States will do away with this
artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the
primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated
reformer of human errors."
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and
mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming
feature."
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever
shone on man."
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor
breaks my leg."
While we're at it, we should take a look at what
Thomas Paine, that most influential of writers, had to
say about religion:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous
debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the
unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half
the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that
we call it the word of a demon than the word of God.
It is a history of wickedness that has served to
corrupt and brutalize mankind."
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other
than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave
mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "
There is, obviously, more evidence that one letter
pointing to the Founding Father's thoughts on the
subject. After reading what they actually thought
about it (especially the lengthy correspondences
between Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin) you'd think
that they wanted nothing more than to abolish the
practice of religion in the states. Of course, being
rational people, and realizing that their views were a
smaller portion of those living in the states, they
could not write such a blasphemous doctrine for the
residents of their country to live under.
My own personal beliefs take heed to these facts:
Christians have a book they say is written by the one
true God, with the undeniable truth. People of Islamic
faith have a similar book, again said to have been
written by the one true God, with the undeniable
truth. In both of these books both Christians and
Muslims are instructed to kill those who do not
believe as they do. It happens to have turned out that
Christians reside in the U.S., which of course has
taken a very liberal path through history. In this
country, we have homosexuals (in the bible, punishable
by death), people of different faiths (again, death),
atheists (again, death), adulterers (death) and many
other sinners. In the world of Islam, the religion has
determined the political and economic growth of the
country. Several Islamic countries are in fact, just
that- Islamic and ruled over by a theocracy. The
amount of ink dedicated to the killing of infidels
(people not of islam faith) in the koran is disgusting
but enlightening in that we can see why these people
are blowing themselves up. Not because they are crazy
or extremists, but because they are fundamentalist,
literal intepreters of the Koran. With a HUGE portion
of the Islamic world believing the their faith is the
one true faith, and HUGE portion of the Christian
world believing that their faith is the one true
faith, with both of these faiths telling these people
to kill one another, it is clear to me what the future
of the world holds. Islamic fundamentalists have had
these views for 1,500 years. Their faith HAS NOT
changed...what has changed, however, is technology.
Explosive technology has changed, transportation
technology has changed. The means for people to bring
about the word of God (killing those not of islamic
faith) has changed. It would be akin to something like
the Spanish Inquisition being around today. I feel
that it is only a matter of time before people of
Islamic faith get the (technological) capability to
carry out their God's will. I feel that if one thing
will be responsible for the end of the world, it will
be differences in "our Judeo- Christian heritage" and
their Islamic heritage. Perhaps the Founding Fathers
could not have seen such an escalation in technology,
though they surely knew about the dangers of religion.
I've come to realize over the years that as an
atheist, I am a neglected and disrespected part of
society. Atheists are less likely than blacks or
homosexuals to get elected for public office. And, of
course, I'd not have it any other way (under the
circumstances). If my words can have any effect on
people, I'd like them to realize that in praying for
world peace, there is a tremendous amount of irony.
It should be known that our Judeo-Christian
heritage is exactly that- a heritage. Like that of our
evolutionary heritage with our ape ancestors, it is
something that we can move away from. Now, more than
ever, is the time to start walking upright without our
knuckles dragging on the ground.
Thank you,
Cameron O'Connor
19 year old Music Major at Cal State Northridge
Posted by sharris at 12:05 AM
Ronald Reagan
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
French teacher
Regular readers of this blog may know that I am not France’s biggest fan. However, credit where credit is due. A French author and high school philosophy teacher wrote an op-ed fro a French paper (which surprisingly ran it) that blistered the Prophet Mohammad and Islam. The 52-year-old teacher wrote of the violence if Islam, both in it’s early days and today.
To disprove this theory, Muslims immediately issued death threats on web sites, by phone and email. The irony of issuing death threats in retaliation for pointing out the obvious – that Muslims are violent toward all who are not Muslim, is apparently lost on this humorless crowd. They published his home address, cell phone number and directions to his home. The author, Robert Redeker, is now under police protection.
While there will be those in the west who want to blame Redeker, they are wrong. Currently at least, there are two types of Muslims – those who are violent and those who through their silence, condone the violence. In fairness, let me list the prominent Muslim leaders who have come out publicly against terrorism and Muslim terrorists….
1.
Enough said.
Posted by sharris at 12:03 AM
October 01, 2006
Weekend media
It has been an active couple of days with regards to media and events.
Thursday night, I had an opportunity sit on a panel at Cal State Northridge with Richard Katz (former California State Assembly member) and Dr. Shirley Svorney (Chair and professor of Econ at CSUN), as part of the College of Business and Economics COBAE Partners Speakers Series.
The audience was terrific, the interaction was great and speaking for myself, I walked away with a better understanding of the challenges facing this state and a stronger belief that we’ll overcome them.
Saturday’s radio show had Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks discussing terrorism, gangs and budgets – a fascinating 30 minutes. Coming up this Saturday (October 7th) are Bill Buratto and Bruce Ackerman , two of Southern California’s foremost experts on economic development discuss recruiting and retaining businesses and employees, the challenges and opportunities.
Today’s column in the Ventura County Star takes a look at what the Founding Fathers might think about how their words are being twisted. I’ve already received some terrific responses and as always – they are appreciated.
Enjoy your Sunday!
Posted by sharris at 12:06 PM
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
Immigration issues
Thursdays Century Boulevard protest (against the treatment of illegal immigrant workers by airport area hotels) again proves the point that the United States is the greatest country in the world.
A group of protesters – predominantly illegal immigrants – protested illegally, disrupting the lives of American citizens. There was no violence, little to no counter protesting and in fact, there was a commitment by law enforcement agencies to work closely with the protesters in advance.
I am reading about the protest on the same day that I am reading government reports on 2005 household income and poverty. From 1995 to 2005, Hispanics in poverty have increased by 794,000, which is more than the total increase of Americans in poverty. This means that if removed from the poverty charts, the actual number of people in poverty in the U.S. would have dropped over the last 10 years. Poverty among blacks dropped and among whites, it held steady. Hispanics also disproportionately impacted the number of uninsured, accounting for 78% of the increase over the past decade.
As I was reviewing these news and research reports, I was struck by a thought. Illegal immigrants come to America because when they compare the potential here against the reality of life in Mexico, and it is worth uprooting their lives and families to try and make a better life. This is easily understood and even sympathized with. Most would acknowledge that they would do the same things for their families. However, after being here for a while, they begin to compare their lives to Americans here, instead of Mexicans in Mexico and now they want even more. This of course is the American way. However, they are not Americans.
Ironically, they want all the benefits and protections of the law and unions that the United States can provide, while expecting us to ignore the laws they don’t agree with – starting with the fact that they are here illegally. This is a difficult issue with no easy answers, but it would be easier for me to support some of their efforts for change if the constant demands were at least tempered with a bit of thankfulness and an acknowledgment of responsibilities. Frankly, a few less chants of “No Justice, No Peace”, an offensive and ironic statement for someone here illegally to make, might go a long way as well.
Posted by sharris at 12:01 AM
Private means private
Lead from today’s news story…
Democratic candidate for governor Phil Angelides on Friday demanded that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately release recordings of private conversations in the governor's office, hinting that he will otherwise release them on his own.
Perhaps the state would be better served by having a leader who A) understands the definition of private and B) has more to do as the majority party candidate for the state’s highest office than try to embarrass the governor over some comments made, again – in private.
I have written here before that Angelides best move is to run his race with dignity, accept his almost inevitable loss and set himself up for a run for Senate or another attempt at governor in 2010. It appears (with his efforts at establishing foreign policy and trolling private conversations for embarrassing remarks) that Angelides is drifting into desperation and certainly has no intention of presenting himself as a dignified candidate. It’s unfortunate.
Posted by sharris at 12:00 AM
