You can draw your own conclusions from what went down this weekend in Anaheim.  But I have to call attention to what is being put out there as a growing meme, that DiFi somehow worked with Chris Dodd to “kill” telecom immunity in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and anyone pushing this line is delivering blatant misinformation.

Sen. Feinstein voted AGAINST stripping immunity out of the Title II provisions of the bill.  The eventual vote to report out a bill without immunity was simply a chance to buy time.  As I noted the other day, James Risen’s article in the New York Times nailed this:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold’s measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.

What happened in the Judiciary Committee was a punt.  There’s going to be a floor fight, and NOTHING is resolved.  DiFi wants to sign on to a bipartisan centrist compromise that probably won’t be a compromise at all.  If and when she does so, we can assess her position on the merits; for now, we can continue to tell her how we feel on the issue (And I hope Chairman Torres along with anyone else concerned about granting legal amnesty to companies who break the law and violate our privacy will continue to do so).  But suggesting that she “led the fight” to kill telecom immunity is an insult to my intelligence.  How can you kill something that’s not dead, and where the so-called leader is actually looking for ways to return it to the bill on the floor?  Try that logic on somebody else.

(Incidentally, the way certain progressive organizations whooped and hollered and jumped in to take credit for DiFi’s vote, which was nothing more than a vote to take pressure off of her, didn’t help matters.)

Its time for the annual march on Fort Benning, and great strides have been made by SOAW.  Two hundred three congressmen voted to stop funding to the School of Assassins, a fifth country announced its military will discontinue involvement with the school, and congress voted to release the names of the 2005 and 2006 graduating class. But this progress may be deceiving.  The last year’s Foreign Operations bill included $16.2 million to fund International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs).  These facilities including ILEA-South in El Salvador which was established to deal with the prolific gang violence and instability in Central America.  Unfortunately, reports about human rights violations from authorities continue to come from El Salvador.

International Gangs

Gang violence and social instability in El Salvador and other Latin American countries are products of our actions and influences.  Guadalupe Chavez and Tiel Rainelli, along with the good people on staff at Presente!,  provide an incriminating article connecting the actions of mercenaries, paid for by our representative and trained by our military, to the violence in Latin American and the resulting emergence of international gangs

“During the 1980’s, under the false logic of the Cold War, the United States provided direct military aid and School of the Americas training for the Salvadoran army that was systematically violating human rights in El Salvador. U.S. military aid, training, and on-the-ground advisors provided the government of El Salvador with the resources and know-how to terrorize the civilian population.
The war left over 70,000 dead and not a single soul untouched. Over two million people fled El Salvador with a great majority of them immigrating into the United States. Los Angeles became a refuge for many Salvadoran families…

…The War on Gangs gradually began to take shape in the mid 1990’s after a 1996 immigration law in the U.S. facilitated the deportation of undocumented people serving more than two years in U.S. detention facilities. From 1996 to 2003, the United States deported 70,000 people to El Salvador.” Those deported were not well received once they arrived in El Salvador, instead they were stigmatized and marginalized for their cultural differences and kept out of yet another system of employment, and education. In response to the deportations and the import of the gang culture from the United States to El Salvador, the Salvadorian government implemented “localized anti-gang measures and [formed] death squads that emerged to kill youth thought to be gang members.”

The Broader Picture

The story of El Salvador is one of many that connects the struggles in our own communities with those in Latin America.  Developing countries have the resources and ability to create prosperous, democratic, and even capitalist societies.  But if they try to become independent of our interest and our corporations cannot exploit their resources we, intervene like in Chile and Venezuela among others.  And a plug for our economic hit men. 

On the Domestic Front

The threat of political violence may be just as real here at home.  Our government hosts a list of the usual suspect left over from the Iran/Contra scandal like current Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, head of the Information Awareness Office Adm. John Poindexter and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams.  They instigated the ‘Salvadoran option’ in Iraq and now oversee security in the US.  Besides the ILEA facilities overseas we are expending Blackwater training facilities here in Southern California .  Isn’t it nice to know, just in case some disaster happens, real or perceived (say an earthquake or rise in gang violence), that we have an apparatus of private mercenaries, who operate with impunity, ready to profit off the suffering of other.  Additionally, more social unrest will only feed our prison industrial complex which act as gangland finishing school.

Positive Alternatives

While there must be an exponential return on investment from the $16M we spend on our School of Assassins, that money might serve better going to other programs.  Here in Los Angeles, the city is busy implementing the advancement project, a comprehensive report by Constance Rice and others geared toward prevention of inner city violence, prison reform, and community development. Churches in 50 cities across the US have joined the   new sanctuary movement. Homies Unidos has gang prevention programs set up in the US and El Salvador.  Homeboy Industries has opened its new facilities in downtown LA.  Jeff Car, founder of the Bresee foundation and ex-COO of Sojourners has been appointed Gang Czar by Mayor Villaraigosa.  We might also look at the success of gang intervention programs in other countries like the Alcatraz Project in Venezuela.

Environmental Website Grist was a  sponsor to the 1st Presidential Candidate Forum on Climate and Energy.
All the Candidates that attended, did well. John Edwards was outstanding, if you go by the crowd’s reactions.

http://gristmill.gri…
—-

Grist Interview: Edwards on the Record – 31 Jul 2007

An interview with John Edwards about his presidential platform on energy and the environment

http://www.grist.org…
—-

John Edwards on the Issues:
Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through A New Energy Economy

http://johnedwards.c…
—-
http://johnedwards.c…
—-

In case you missed the first presidential candidate climate and energy forum,
here are the clips. Senator John Edwards really impressed the crowd and the Event moderators:

Edwards at LCV/Grist Global Warming Forum, pt. 1

http://www.youtube.c…
—-

Edwards at LCV/Grist Global Warming Forum, pt. 2

http://www.youtube.c…
—-

Edwards at LCV/Grist Global Warming Forum, pt. 3

http://www.youtube.c…
—-

Edwards at LCV/Grist Global Warming Forum, pt. 4

http://www.youtube.c…
—-

Edwards at LCV/Grist Global Warming Forum, pt. 5

http://www.youtube.c…
—-

The American People NEED many MORE Forums like this —
which are focused on substantive issues that ACTUALLY effect Americans,
instead of the typical Media-sponsored Debates,
which are “staged” to be more like a “Boxing Match”
than an actual “Free Marketplace of Ideas”!

America is “hiring our next CEO” —
WE deserve serious Interviews of the prospective Candidates!
(NOT more spin and hype and sound bites)

Kudos and Saluation to the Global Warming Presidential Event Sponsors
you are True Patriots, and have performed a great service to the County:

– League of Conservation Voters Education Fund,
– California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund,
– Center for American Progress Action Fund,
– NRDC Action Fund,
– the Presidential Forum on Renewable Energy.

All of our “Free Press” MSM should be so responsible!

Maybe … someday.

(The “food for signatures” tactic is especially damning. – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

Original post at Daily Kos

Vikingkingq published an excellent diary here and Calitics on Wednesday  and a follow-up on Thursday about this issue. I too ran into the same tactics he described at UCSB here in Orange County on Thursday afternoon.

It appears there was a statewide effort by the company collecting the signatures to hide what they were doing. Reports of this tactic have come from Davis, Santa Barbara, Berkeley and Orange County. The story that keeps coming out is that petitioners approached registered voter, made their pitch to get a signature for the children’s cancer hospital initiative and then asked the voter to “sign multiple copies”.

The clipboard is set up in such a way with a large rubber band, holding down the “copies”, that unless you disassembled the mess, one could not tell that there other ballot initiatives under the children’s cancer hospital page. They simply appear to be more signature sheets.

The other ballot issues are never mentioned. This is a misdemeanor under California election code. But the f’kery continues in many different ways.

My hope for this diary is that we can collect up everyone’s experiences and post links to any articles relating to this.

There seems to be 3 different aspects to the fraud. The collection methods for the signatures (as described above), Daryll Issa’s illegal involvement (by poaching the names from the recall signatores and trading food for signatures on skid row.

The children’s cancer hospital/sign multiple copies tactic is documented in the UCSB student newspaper, The Daily Nexus. The other tactic used is to describe the initiative as an anti-war initiative (registration required).

Hjiorst has an excellent diary up on Daryll Issa’s involvement and Jerry Brown’s possible response.

Trading food for signatures on skid row in downtown L.A. seems particularly cynical. (hat tip LooHoo).

If you spot an article, please post a link. If you get hit by these guys, don’t be afraid to call the CA Secretary of State (they were very easy to talk to) and your local county voter registrar (no enforcement, but they are put on alert to look extra carefully).

If you encounter these people, please don’t interupt their “process” – see exactly what it is they are doing, so it can be reported. There are other groups out there this weekend doing petitioning. The others were doing it by the book and the contrast is quite interesting. The relevant election code is:

California Elections Code

SECTION 18600-18603

18600

(b) Willfully and knowingly circulates, publishes, or exhibits any
false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents,
purport or effect of any state or local initiative, referendum, or
recall petition for the purpose of obtaining any signature to, or
persuading or influencing any person to sign, that petition.
I think this is even more relevant

18602.  Any person working for the proponent or proponents of a
statewide initiative or referendum measure who covers or otherwise
obscures the summary of the measure prepared by the Attorney General
from the view of a prospective signer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The “circulation deadline”, according the the CA Secretary of State website, is November 29th, 2007 to qualify for the June ballot.

Thank you, Vikingkingq for bringing this important issue into view! Let’s keep it at the top of the heap.

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

NOTE: I am reposting this from a long comment I just made in a diary posted by Julia Rosen about the incident at the Resolutions Committee meeting last night. I am reposting it here as a diary so that John’s response can potentially be read by a larger audience.

Thank you to everyone who posted supportive comments in the aftermath of the sign incident with John Hanna.

Since I told you earlier that I was planning to talk with John, I can now tell you what happened.

In the interim period, many people talked to me about how to respond, some going so far as to suggest that I call the police to file a report.

Something about that didn’t feel right. In my gut, I knew that what happened clearly crossed the line (to be kind) but that I needed to talk to John before taking any kind of action. I did not know John but I felt I needed to give him a chance to explain himself.

He did, both publicly and privately. I wasn’t in the room when the meeting adjourned, but from what Julia told me, John offered a very sincere apology to the Resolutions Committee and others present for his behavior.

Brian (Leubitz), who is on the Resolutions Committee, privately asked John to meet with me. Juls called me and I came over to the meeting room shortly thereafer.

More below the fold…

John approached me and immediately and thoughtfully apologized for his behavior. He was quite forthright and direct. I sensed that his regret was coming from a very sincere place.

We talked for a good 45 minutes with him, Brian, Juls and a two of John’s colleagues.  It was actually one of the most edifying and intellectually stimulating conversations I’ve had in Anaheim.

While consistently acknowledging that what he had done was wrong, John then went on to talk about what led up to this altercation and how it might have been avoided. For example, he respectfully suggested that we should have approached the co-chairs of the meeting before positioning our sign in the room.

It’s a fair point. I am mindful that we could have made a more formal request to place the sign and easel inside the room. Crunched for time, we failed to follow the expected protocol. If I had to do it over again, I/we would have followed it. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been, but at least it would have started the conversation on a more collegial level, perhaps leading to an amicable solution for everyone.

I don’t know John that well, but I got the impression from our conversation that he is a very thoughtful, very judicious and presumably fair individual who overreacted to a high-stress moment with an uncharacteristic physical response.

I accept his apology.

Hopefully, this unfortunate incident can be a potential bridge-building opportunity with the Resolutions Committee members. To that end, I have invited John Hanna to reach out to the grassroots and netroots and engage our communities in a dialogue about the resolutions process.

In the end, as many of you know now, the censure resolution itself was not officially heard by the Resolutions Committee. A number of members objected to it being considered, due to its submission as a late resolution, per party rules.

You can read more about the Resolutions Committee outcome in a piece Rick Jacobs posted at the Courage Campaign.

Thanks again for your support, everyone.

Onward.

Eden James
Managing Director
Courage Campaign

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign)

Things took a pretty nasty turn, unfortunately.

I entered the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee  meeting room with Eden James, Courage Campaign’s Managing Director, bearing our sign and easel.  We found a free space at the front of the room and set up the sign.

Almost immediately, Resolutions Chair John Hanna approached us, demanding that we remove the sign.  Eden politely asked if there “was a rule” against signs in the meeting rooms.  Hanna replied “yes.”

Kathy Bowler, CDP Executive Director, then calmly approached me, stating that the sign should be removed because the room was getting full and she had staff she needed to get into the room.

John then grabbed ahold of one side of the sign, attempting to remove it from Eden’s hands. Eden, maintaining his hold on to the other side, repeated the question to John about whether a rule existed against signs inside the meeting room. John said “yes”again and Eden asked to see the rule, saying that if there was an actual rule against signs inside the room — he would respect it.

Increasingly angry, John threatened to call security. Eden, surprised, calmly responded that John “should go ahead if that’s what you want to do.”

Suddenly, Hanna then shoved his side of the sign and Eden at the same time, forcibly pushing Eden backwards. Eden held on. John shoved again, then pushed Eden’s shoulder back with the palm of his hand.

Stunned, Eden let go of the sign as John ripped it from his hands and threw it to the floor. An unknown person then picked up the sign and sprinted it out of the room, taking it to the staff room (according to Kathy Bowler).

More below

This is the Last thing that we wanted to happen. And Eden is one of the most peaceful, non-aggressive people that I have ever met. It was shocking to see his calm, determined words met by violence.

The goal of bringing the sign into the room was to provide a visual representation of the large number of people, clubs and groups supporting the resolution to censure the Senator.

Our purpose in continuing to discuss moving the sign was to get a clear reason and clarification of the rules surrounding bringing in signs. If a rule was presented against posting signs, we would have respected it without question. And indeed, we would have entertained a discussion about its removal due to space issues.

We are shocked and shaken by this turn of events and so are many others. It is extremely disappointing that something as simple as trying to bring a sign into a room (that lists organizations supporting a resolution) can escalate into physical violence.

Eden and I want to commend Kathy Bowler for her professionalism throughout this incident. John Hanna’s conduct, on the other hand is shocking, upsetting, and completely inappropriate.

This resolution should be addressed on its merits. No matter what side you are on, this discussion does not deserve to be marred by physical violence.