Some people underestimate Richard Nixon’s legacy. Some of the most progressive social programs came during his administration.  Legal Aid was one of these achievements.  Since that time, the Legal Services Corporation has been phenomenally successful, to the limited extent of its funding.  Unfortunately, funding for the LSC has been minimalistic since the 80s.  Reagan came into office and slashed that commy program for the do-gooder lawyer types.  Of course, that just left judges to deal with parties who were ill-equipped to handle the issues in front of them.

However, not all California Republicans are so naive.  One example is the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George.  George has said that he would like the state to begin a pilot program to provide legal services to the indigent for a broad range of cases.   Check over the flip.

California’s top judge said Tuesday that he wants the state to provide lawyers for the poor in civil cases such as child custody disputes and evictions in which people often have to represent themselves.

Chief Justice Ronald George said he will ask Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to test the idea by funding a pilot project in three counties — one small, one medium-size and one large — to provide attorneys for low-income litigants in a limited category of cases, including family law and housing, in which important individual rights are at stake. He didn’t identify the counties.(SF Chron 12/19/06)

  Dave Jones (D-Sacto), is preparing to introduce legislation authorizing the pilot program and funding it.  The initial cost estimates are around $20 million for the pilot program will be difficult to attain with the $3.5 billion deficit (for which Arnold Schwarzenegger has no plan), but this would be $20 million well spent.  You see, properly and swiftly settled disputes save us all money.  In fact, the courts end up wasting so much time trying to figure out what’s going on in these pro se cases that the $20 million will likely be recovered through more prompt decisions and less over time, etc.

  This is a great idea, and I applaud both Jones and George for their advocacy in this area.  Hey Assemblyman Jones, that’s 2 good bills for you.  Keep up the good work.
 

(Who would do this? – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Last night vandals desecrated the memorial to the fallen heroes in Iraq on a hillside in Lafayette, California. The vandals used black paint to cover up the tribute on the sign which read: “IN MEMORY OF 2,937 U.S. TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ.”

Jeff Heaton developed the plan to build a memorial to the fallen U.S. troops in Iraq. The memorial of crosses is located on private property owned by John and Louise Clark near the BART station in Lafayette. The property is on a hillside and is clearly visible to commuters on BART and on Highway 24. Volunteer support for the project initially came from community peace advocates including the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center and the Lamorinda Peace Group.

Last night vandals desecrated the memorial to the fallen heroes in Iraq on a hillside in Lafayette, California. The vandals used black paint to cover up the tribute on the sign which read: “IN MEMORY OF 2,937 U.S. TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ.”

Jeff Heaton developed the plan to build a memorial to the fallen U.S. troops in Iraq. The memorial of crosses is located on private property owned by John and Louise Clark near the BART station in Lafayette. The property is on a hillside and is clearly visible to commuters on BART and on Highway 24. Volunteer support for the project initially came from community peace advocates including the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center and the Lamorinda Peace Group.

Volunteers built and painted 420 crosses leading up to Veterans Day. These crosses were erected on the hillside over the weekend of November 11. A sign large enough to be read from a distance was also erected. Initially, the sign read: “IN MEMORY OF 2,839 U.S. TROOPS KILLED IN IRAQ.” The sign, in turn, became a lightning rod for controversy. On November 14, a photographer from the Contra Costa Times happened to snap a photo of Jean Bonodio, identified as a former Marine, knocking the sign down. The City of Lafayette agreed to discuss the issue of the sign at a regularly scheduled city council meeting on November 27. The meeting attracted enormous media attention and allowed citizens to express their opinions about the war, free speech, the memorial, patriotism, respect for the military and the size of the sign.

On November 30, Michelle Locke, an AP journalist specializing in free speech issues wrote a story that was picked up world wide. The goal of the memorial is eventually to have a cross for every soldier killed in Iraq. The volunteer force building, painting and erecting the crosses has grown steadily. Each Sunday more crosses are added.

And now something really ugly has happened. The crosses and the sign have meant different things to different viewers. Some see a memorial to the fallen heroes in Iraq. Others see an anti war mesaage that does not show proper respect to our troops. But what can we make of this kind of vandalism and its misguided perpetrators? And how will the community respond? I hope to see a renewed commitment to completing the memorial and to ending this tragic war.

Cross posted at Eschew Obfuscation

(One of the ways redistricting would be good for us is to increase turnout. higher turnout=more Dem victories. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The AP reported Monday that 2006 turnout in California was the second lowest in state history, just falling short of the record low of 2002.  This is especially distressing since it comes in a year that saw some states match or exceed presidential-year turnout and since 2006 should have been a year which provided California Democrats a great reason to show up- knocking off Arnold Schwarzenegger.  So I have several problems with this state of affairs on the flip, and I’m sure everyone else has their favorite gripes as well.

One- Democrats had, at most, three big races that might turn people out in a big way.  Governor, CA-04, and CA-11.  Not much else got a ton of traction, despite efforts by many to make the sub-gubernatorial state races more exciting.  An LA Times editorial on Sunday touched briefly on this issue in the context of redistricting, noting that seats simply don’t change hands in California at this point.  Since redistricting in 2001, there just haven’t been very many compelling races.  If every district is predetermined, why do people bother showing up?

Two- The recently released Democratic Party Agenda for 2007 lists nine major points, three of which are directly focused on voter registration or mobilization.  Obviously an important issue if done properly.  But with inspiring and ambitious goals like “Expand the Party’s new citizen voter registration programs”, I’ll have to be forgiven if I’m wary about the underlying detailed infrastructure and institutional commitment to this plan.  Particularly in a political climate in which Democrats are scared to death of the immigration issue thus don’t want to court the Latino vote too hard, I’ll wait for some concrete plans.  In the meantime- how about a full push for the Democratic Party in Spanish?  Anyways, that’s another day.

Third- Perhaps most distressing, this turnout means that, for all the Democrats who tripped over each other trying to line up behind a supposed moderate, reformist winner in Schwarzenneger, he was elected with the votes of less than 19% of potentially eligible California voters.  19 percent!  Let’s start rolling that into his “mandate” shall we?  This great force of political dynamism could only clock in just short of 19-friggin-percent.  The flipside of course, even more painful, is that it leaves Angelides with an even more sad 15.3% of Californians.

If we want to reform the state party, and we do, getting people to vote is going to be the biggest way to make a difference.  I haven’t seen registration or turnout data that would serve as a targeting model, but I have no doubt that it’s out there.  But if this state party is only good for 15% in a gubernatorial race, I’d say we have a pretty good case for its being entirely impotent.

Blogging has provided incredible innovation when it comes to how messages and issues are framed, packaged and delivered.  But getting people turned out hasn’t seen much of the action.  We phone bank, we knock on doors, but we don’t innovate.  MoveOn has made great strides towards nationalizing and simplifying phonebanking by allowing people to do it from home, but the fundamental methods of outreach have remained the same.  Maybe they need to be, but the netroots is packed with creativity and ingenuity, there should be more ways to shake up this process.

So consider this a first sounding board.  I’ve got a few ideas percolating already, but until I get those fully formed, what else is out there?

crossposted from Left in SF

It never fails. Bills that seek to make small, but tangible, changes in people’s lives are dismissed as ridiculous by the people they don’t affect. Take Pedro Nava’s Safe Passing bill, AB60, which would mandate that cars give bicyclists 3 feet of space as they pass. Sounds minor, but it could potentialy save dozens of lives every year in California, and make biking in the state more appealing (and remember, everyone who bikes instead of drives means less pollution, less traffic, and a healthier person).

No sooner had I fired off this email to my Assemblymember, Mark Leno, in support of this bill

Dear Assemblymember Leno,

I am writing to encourage your support for AB60, the Pedro Nava Safe passing law. As I am sure you know, the city of San Francisco’s efforts to make bicycling safer have been held up by the intervention of some of our narrow-minded citizens. The State, however, is still allowed to act.

Nava’s bill would help to make cycling safer. I depend on my bicycle as my main mode of transportation and it’s a rare day nobody cuts a pass overly close, occasionally even driving me into the curb.

Every year, more than 100 cyclists are killed in California. It’s time to do something about it.

when I saw this post from the LA Times’s blog Political Muscle:

Another year, another zillion bills. The Times’ Nancy Vogel has sifted through the mounds of legislation already filed by California’s 120 lawmakers. Here are a few offbeat highlights, with our own proposed names attached:

The Lance Armstrong ‘Back Off Buddy’ Protection Act: Assemblyman Pedro Nava wants to require motorists to stay at least three feet to the left of bicyclists when passing them. Under AB 60, violators could be fined up to $250. Perhaps violators will also be required to participate in the Tour de France by riding a Big Wheel.

I can’t read this without hearing Beavis and Butthead saying “heh-heh, heh-heh, he said big wheel”.

I’m pretty clear that this bill is not going to be on the top of many people’s legislative agendas, but it’s a pretty small change that could save plenty of lives.

Click through for what prompted this.

Here’s the email I got today that prompted me to write Leno in the first place:

Hi team mates,

Some of you may have heard that my father was hit and killed while riding his bike lawfully last summer on Highway 35 near Skylonda, which is why I’ve been off the bike more than usual this fall and summer.

A civil case and a criminal case against the elderly driver are pending, but even if we win both (likely, I think) it will really have only a small effect.  If one thing could come of this, I’d like to at least think that I was able to make it less likely to happen to another cyclist, including me and you.

Fortunately, I just learned today that State Assemblymember Pedro Nava, who has just assumed chairmanship of the Assembly Transportation Committee, has re-introduced AB 60, a state bill that would require motorists to give cyclists a minimum 3-foot berth when passing.

Here’s a Sacramento Bee article on AB 60:

Here’s the full text of the bill:

I encourage everyone to write letters of support for this bill.  I think a letter to Nava, and to your own state assemblyperson would be good.

The writer of this letter, and the hundreds of thousands of Californians who ride a bike, deserve better than a snide comment by our state’s version of the Kewl Kids–the political insiders who think they can define what’s important to Californians. The triathlete whose death prompted Nava to introduce the bill, Kendra Chiota Payne, deserves better.

It’s why I’ll never be a kewl political reporter for the LA Times. I care more about the content of the law than whether it’s “offbeat”.

Photo by Richard Masoner.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

She even uses the exact same words to describe herself…eery.  Except Tauscher doesn’t even bother to include the word “Democrat”. She’s in a 60% Kerry district, and she can’t bring herself to say the word “Democrat” or “Democratic” or anything? Over the flip, you’ll see Joe Lieberman’s “Concession speech” after the primary.  They’re independent! WooHoo!