Earlier today I attended a panel called “Who’s Leading Whom?” exploring the role of blogs in political media.I was there with Todd Beeton who wrote it up here. It was moderated by Arianna Huffington, and the panelists were Chris Cilliza of WaPo’s The Fix, Greg Maffei of Liberty Media, Digby of Hullabaloo and Jonathan Alter- Senior Editor and Political Columnist for Newsweek.

Whether by design or not, much of the conversation centered around the extremism on blogs and particularly in the comments. Maffei commented several times that the nature of the internet lends to infinite commentary and thus potentially waters down the value of what’s found on political blogs. I don’t dispute the first part of this, but finding a readership demands that what’s being written carry some sort of value. There’s a meritocratic aspect that’s often overlooked by purveyors of traditional media no matter how well they understand (or sometimes don’t) the nature of blogging. Cillizza and Alter both repeatedly blasted the quality of comments on blogs (there’s specifically) but failed to address the reason: blogs from widely known news outlets which don’t moderate comments turn in to magnets for extremist and disruptive comments. It’s perhaps understandable then that both would have a negative view of the comment aspects of blogs and tend to judge the broader notion of a blogosphere based on these experiences. But neither had any notable exposure to communities of commenters, rating systems, etc. which serve as an effective check on the more counter-productive comments.

In the same vein, Alter and Maffei in particular noted that the infinite space online leads to the purveyors of vitriol and extremists on both sides of the spectrum rising to the top. Aside from the fact that I don’t think that’s accurate, nobody managed to note that the exact same thing is true of newspaper opinion columns and especially the punditocracy on cable news. For the most part, nobody gets a steady stream of repeat gigs if they don’t stir the pot. Whether they have anything accurate or constructive to say is secondary. So this criticism of blogs completely falls flat as far as I’m concerned, no matter how much these folks are commited to defending the honor of traditional media.

Finally, the most compelling part of the discussion for me personally was the discussion regarding what the inherent role and nature of blogging might be. The traditional media folks (Maffei and Alter) consistently hammered on the quite accurate point that actually finding news requires time and money that bloggers generally don’t have (with a number of very good exceptions of course). It reminded me immediately of the Google campaign from 2006 in which I noted essentially “I don’t want your job.” I speak for myself only here, but I’m not aspiring to be a reporter in the traditional sense. I’m just not. I’m here to make sure that the people who ARE here to do that, do it responsibly. Arianna Huffington talked about the notion of ‘hybrid’ media- the collision of blogging and newspapers, tv news, etc. and I agree that’s the direction things are heading. As the resources available to bloggers grow, the more they’re able to do original reporting. At the same time, traditional outlets are increasingly moving online- Cillizza is an excellent example. The fundamental issue here is exactly what Digby noted: “The traditional media lost its credibility because the traditional media lost its credibility.” Blogs didn’t do it. Iraq and everything that followed did it. The lack of skepticism did it. Blogs pointed out what had already happened and Digby nailed it.

Coming out of this discussion, I think the question going forward is one that hits both blogs, traditional media and what Arianna called hybrid media. It came out of a question from Ari Melber of The Nation and centered on the line between the responsibility for media to report truth and the need for media not to insert their own values into their stories. It’s something that everyone on the panel touched on at various points in the discussion, and certainly a tough line to find. My concern, and I think a concern that was borne out in the discussion, was that media members are generally more inclined to carefully avoid opinion at the expense of truth. That’s not going to cut it, and it’s a problem that we have to collectively figure out going forward.

Well, it took some effort and getting past Bob Mullholland who seemed have no clue that there was a credentialed blogger sitting with the delegation, but I am in my seat, plugged into the ethernet and to power.  This fifty state blogging program is pretty incredible.  I have all of the same access as Wolf Blitzer, who I can see sitting right in front of me, if not more.  Unfortunately, I was first told by Mullholland that I didn’t belong there and then that there wasn’t a seat for me.  He softened up a bit, when I explained the program to him and then moved on to insisting that I couldn’t listen to anything he said, nor the people around him.

So a staffer from Rep. Honda’s office wandered around the convention hall with me until we got the official word that I was to be where I was supposed to be.  Anyways, the drama is over and I would much rather be chatting with the delegates than trying to eavesdrop on Mullholland.

Art Torres is now here, though half of the California delegation and quite frankly most other delegations are not here yet.  My buddy Rob Pierson, who I met on the ’06 Charlie Brown race is helping record California’s delegates votes for the Secretary’s office.

Howard Dean just introduced Speaker Nancy Pelosi, naturally the California delegation rose and cheered for our homestate girl.  Steve Maviglio is here.  I think I shall be nice and let him borrow my ethernet cable.

BTW You can follow my twitter feed over here as I go through the week.  I’m helping out with escorting press and VIPs around there when I am not in the convention hall.

[UPDATE] My Rep. Doris Matsui just got done with a short speech. Later tonight we will get to hear a real speech from Speaker Pelosi, not to mention Sen. Teddy Kennedy and Michelle Obama.  The full schedule is here.

In the past week there has been an emerging coalition of environmental justice and mainline environmental groups opposing the CEQA revisions of SB375. Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) have come out against the bill.  The Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League have withdrawn their support.  Other environmental justice groups – spearheaded by California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT) are also mobilizing to oppose the bill. I am not affiliated with any of these groups.

The nut of their argument is that SB375 creates a two tier CEQA process – with urban communities receiving less review and protection than suburban and rural ones. As such, it privileges wealthier and whiter suburban areas at the expense of the working class communities of color in the inner cities.  

The details are of course more complex than this simple one paragraph explanation.  Follow below the fold to read an EJ analysis being circulated by Jane Williams of CCAT.  

SB 375 and Environmental Justice, Jane Williams

SB 375 has the laudatory goal of encouraging transit oriented development.  The bill contains measures to encourage such development, such as providing additional funding for certain transit projects, and requiring regional planning that reduces vehicle miles traveled .  

However, SB 375 seeks to reach its goals by severely limiting the public’s right to review  projects under the California Environmental Quality Act deemed to be transit priority projects.  In so doing, the bill reduces the level of environmental rights and protections for urban communities while preserving the existing levels of environmental rights and protections for rural and suburban communities.  This has obvious environmental justice implications.  

The bill contravenes a bedrock principle of CEQA jurisprudence, namely, that all projects can be made better through public review.  Even urban in-fill projects can be improved through public review.  Existing provisions for the public review of projects has resulted in project improvements such as requirements for car-share pods, electric vehicle charging stations, solar panel installation, low-flow water fixtures, low-water use landscaping, cool roofs, additional site-cleanup of toxic contamination, and countless other improvements.

The bill undermines a bedrock democratic principle that members of the public have a right to review and comment on all projects that will affect their communities.  

We believe there should not be one set of legal rights that applies to people living in the suburbs and a weaker set of legal rights that apply to people living in cities. These legal rights are used by communities to protect the health and wellbeing of their residents by requiring developers to adopt mitigations which reduce air pollution. Air pollution, which according to the California Air Resources Board, is having a devastating impact on the health of those communities.

Environmental justice communities deserve “equal protection” of the rights conferred under state law.  SB 375 would create two standards in law: one that applies to predominantly white, middle class suburban communities and one that applies predominantly to urban, low-income communities of color.

To be specific, the bill creates a new statutory CEQA exemption which would exempt from CEQA review projects that are deemed to be transit priority projects if they meet a long list of criteria.  To qualify as a transit priority project, the proposed project must be consistent with a sustainable communities strategy developed by regional planning bodies, and must be within one-half mile of a rail or ferry corridor, or within one-quarter mile of a bus line.  This would cover much of California’s urban areas, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento.  To receive the CEQA exemption, these projects would have to meet a long list of criteria, such as not harming endangered species, not impacting wetlands, not having more than 200 residential units, not exceeding 8 acres, meeting heightened energy efficiency guidelines, and a number of other conditions.  

Thus, for example, a 199 unit residential development one-half mile from a train station could be exempted entirely from CEQA review if it is deemed a transit priority project and meets the listed requirements.  Thus, the community would be precluded from arguing in favor additional greenhouse gas mitigation measures ranging from solar panels, to car-sharing, additional environmental controls to reduce diesel exhaust from construction emissions or measures that would limit asbestos that may be released from the destruction of old buildings, or raising site contamination issues that may not have appeared on Phase I environmental assessments (a situation that is very common), or even from raising aesthetic concerns related to projects that may be far out of scale with their surrounding communities.  

Furthermore, even for larger projects, SB 375 creates a “streamlined” CEQA process called a “sustainable communities environmental assessment.”  Any residential or “mixed use residential” project that “is consistent with the use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy,” “shall not be required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts; or (2) any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network,” or “reduced residential density alternatives.”  (Pub.Res.Code sect. 21159.28(a).)

Thus, even for large projects, if they are located near transit, and comply with the sustainable community strategy will receive streamlined CEQA review that exempts them from analyzing growth-inducing impacts and transit-related global warming impacts.  This could allow some very large sprawl developments to proceed with streamlined CEQA review and avoid global warming mitigations.  

For example, the City of Concord is currently considering the largest development in the Bay Area for over a decade at the Concord Naval Weapons Station.  The development may house up to 30,000 people.  The City is considering seven different project alternatives ranging from sprawl (houses spread across the entire weapons station) to “smart growth” (transit-oriented, multi-family housing clustered in walking distance to the BART station located at the edge of the property with vast areas preserved as open space).  Under SB 375, the project could be deemed a transit priority project since it is located near a BART rail station, and if it is consistent with the sustainable communities strategy, the City would not have to consider the fact that the smart growth alternative reduces pollution emissions drastically compared to the sprawl alternative.  This seems to undermine the very goals that SB 375 set out to address.  

In addition to removing growth-inducing impacts and transit-related greenhouse gas from consideration, the environmental assessment need only address issues that were not adequately addressed in a prior CEQA document.  The agency’s determination in this regard would be subject to the “substantial evidence” test.  Thus, if any agency has any evidence to support its determination that impacts ranging from hazardous waste left onsite, contaminated drinking water, vapor intrusion of toxic chemicals, toxic air emissions from nearby industrial sources, emissions during construction, and others, were adequately addressed in a prior CEQA document, then those issues would not have to be analyzed or mitigated again.  (See, 21155.2.(b)(7) (“The lead agency’s decision to review and approve a  transit priority project with a sustainable communities environmental assessment shall be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.”)

In short, SB 375 reduces the legal remedies for low-income communities already heavily burdened by pollution, while preserving those protections for rural and suburban communities.  

The fundamental question is whether the goal of this bill should be pursued by depriving environmental justice communities equal protections to rights enjoyed by others.  Rights which help them reduce deaths and disability in their communities caused by air pollution.

Some great people have been sashaying through the Big Tent to huddle up with the bloggers.  And the traditional media has joined them, to take exciting pictures of people typing to show how the bloggers kick it.  Rockin’!

I did get a chance to spend a few minutes with Van Jones, an environmental and green jobs activist, to talk about the future of energy and how we can beat the Republicans at their own game.  He also offered a candid assessment of the state of the Presidential campaign.

Jones thinks that the progressive movement and Democratic groups have been “hurt by having a good candidate.  We were so galvanized against Bush in 2004 that every outside group went nuts, threw everything we had at the Republicans, and we almost came up with the win despite a less inspiring candidate.  This year, the spirit of 2004 has been lost.  Obama made the mistake of defunding the outside groups and we’ve become complacent to an extent.”  Jones said that last week’s hit by the Obama campaign on the McCain housing issue was good, but it needs to be a 10-week phenomenon, not a 1-week phenomenon.

On green jobs, which is Jones’ real focus area, he stressed that we need to move the environmental conversation from a cultural one to a political one.  The green-collar economy “can be a place for people to earn money, not spend money.  We need collective action for green citizenship, to create the jobs of the future in a Green New Deal.  As long as carbon is free we’re never going to move forward.”  He was pleased by the recent efforts by municipalities and states (green jobs bills have been passed in Massachusetts and Washington state, and the US Conference of Mayors is on board as well), but recognizes that the federal government must be involved as well.  “This is about laws, not gizmos.  Technology cannot be the savior.  This has to be a bottom-up, inside-outside AND a top-down strategy.  If the Feds are MIA, human life will be MIA in the future.”

We talked about the offshore drilling debate, where Jones clearly stated that the Republicans won the day by lying to the American people.  He had three major points:

• There is no such thing as American oil.  There is oil drilled by multinationals that is sent overseas to China and India.  American offshore driling will do nothing to solve any American oil problems.

• We banned drilling in offshore areas not to save birds and fish, but because of coastal families and coastal communities, because kids were walking into the water and coming out with oil on them, because property values were plunging.  Democrats should not be willing to throw away America’s beauty for a 2-cent solution in 10 years.

• We’ve seen the new phenomenon of the “dirty greens,” who want to have an “all of the above strategy” on energy, with solar and wind, but also clean coal and drilling offshore and shale and all these dirty polluters.  “All of the above” is not a strategy.  It’s not a wise choice, but a stupid swipe at a persistent problem.

Democrats are right on price – if you cut demand and expand supply through renewables, the price will drop.  They are right on people, because those steps will create millions of jobs.  And they’re right on the planet, because it’s the only solution to preserve our environmental future.  What the Republicans are offering is Happy Meal Politics, the kind of politics that offers everything for free with no residual consequences.

Jones is a great messenger, and a real leader in the green movement.  Democrats would do well to listen to him.

While most of the Calitics editorial board is conventioning in Denver this week I’m holding down the fort back here in California. I love the Mile High City, but with the onset of Monterey’s summer I don’t think I’m going to miss much.

Which gives me time to focus on one of the ongoing arguments over this fall’s ballot, specifically over Proposition 11 – redistricting reform. Over at the California Progress Report Frank Russo has been hosting a running debate on the topic, with Democratic redistricting expert Bill Cavala taking on all challengers in his effort to explain why Prop 11 is a bad idea.

Cavala defends himself well and certainly doesn’t need my help, but today’s pro-Prop 11 article from the president of the CA branch of the AARP is so full of flaws that I felt compelled to add my two cents.

Jeannine English’s article repeats the two most common errors of Prop 11 advocates: 1) making the assumption that legislative-controlled redistricting is at the core of our state’s problems, and 2) that redistricting reform will produce a less partisan legislature and therefore solve our state’s problems. Both are completely false. It is a reform in search of a problem. From English’s article:

The question California voters should ask themselves this November is this: “is the status quo in Sacramento working for me?” Considering the state’s ongoing budget problems, lack of health care reform despite years of debate, regular cuts to social services, and a host of other issues that are not being properly addressed in the state, the answer from all but political insiders will likely be “no, the status quo is not working for me.”…

So now its time for voters to get it done. Prop. 11, written over two years by voting rights attorneys and experts in consultation with Californians of all ideological persuasions, will create fair redistricting in California so incumbents are not guaranteed their reelection but actually have to work for their votes. With Prop 11’s passage, legislators will have to work better together to solve the problems Californian’s care about, instead of staying in their partisan corners.

This is a slick move to cast Prop 11 as a solution to the state’s problems, but it ignores some important truths. The reason Sacramento is broken is because a far-right Republican minority bent on destroying public services has repeatedly exploited the 2/3 rule to prevent the state from putting its fiscal house in order. Those two problems – a wingnut Republican caucus and the 2/3 rule – are without a doubt the major obstacles to a state government that works.

Redistricting reform solves neither of these problems. Instead it stems from the misguided belief that what California has is too much partisanship – a stance that lets the Republicans off the hook and hides from voters the real work Democrats have done to compromise and fix the budget.

It also errs in assuming that it’s even possible to make competitive districts in California. There’s no way to make San Francisco or south Orange County anything but a safe seat for one party or the other without gerrymandering on a far more egregious scale than anything currently done.

That being said, is there a significant downside to Democrats from Prop 11, even if it’s a pointless reform? After all, Washington State has used a similar independent process to draw districts since 1983 and today Dems have 2/3 majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

In fact downsides do exist. The “independent commission” is not an accurate representation of the state’s political demography. Republicans and Democrats would have the same number of seats on the commission, despite the fact that Democrats have over a million more registered voters in California. Prop 11 gives Republicans an artificial advantage that they have not earned and do not deserve.

Bill Cavala has argued convincingly that a redistricting commission could wind up shifting enough seats to the Republicans to move Democrats from having a realistic shot at 2/3 majorities to having to defend their majority. And he quite rightly points out that the current “moderates” in the Republican Party have consistently voted in lockstep with the wingnuts, suggesting how out of touch Prop 11’s proponents are.

The most frustrating aspect of Prop 11 may be how much time and energy it is diverting from the real issues facing California. Why aren’t the so-called “good government” groups making a stronger push to get rid of the 2/3 rule? We can see its damaging effect on the state right now with a budget crisis dragging on with no end in sight. If groups like the AARP really want to fix a broken California, they should direct their resources to fixing that issue.

Well, yesterday was uneventful for me.  Just getting in and getting my bearings around the city.  The first thing I saw was a parade of four pickup trucks full of cops riding toward downtown.  

Later, a friend of ours took us down by the Platte River to a spot near the enormous REI store, where fire spinners congregate every Sunday night.  Afterwards, we stopped in on some vegetarian restaurant holding a poetry slam, and Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich were in there having dinner.  While most people in from out of town were eating their corporate-funded cocktail weenies, I stumbled upon some actual leftists for a change.  

While George Bush won Colorado by 4 points in 2004, John Kerry took Denver by 40.  This city grows more and more Democratic with each passing year, and raising turnout here – and keeping them in the Democratic fold – would be a key to victory in the state, I gather.

This morning, I’m sitting at the breakfast for the California delegation.  Hillary Clinton apparently cancelled today (she’ll be at the New York breakfast), but Speaker Pelosi will be on hand.  The big buzz of the convention (for today) is that Ted Kennedy has arrived in Denver and will be speaking tonight.  That should be pretty crazy.

UPDATE: While Lucas and I were sitting here bullshitting, Nancy Pelosi was apparently holding a press avail.  We’re good journalists.  Todd Beeton was there and he’s going to stop by and write it up.  I guess it was a litany of wanker traditional media scribes asking “Is there unity?  UNITY?  UNITY!!!1!????”

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi has just taken the stage at the breakfast.  Lots of Congresscritters are here as well.  I may lose power here in a second.  Pelosi: “California will give Barack Obama and Joe Biden the biggest victory in the history of our country… the most votes ever for a Presidential candidate… are you ready to come together in unity and support Barack Obama and Joe Biden?… I bring this up because reporters ask me all day about this… but as we gather here… remember, it’s not just about us and what our feelings are about the campaigns.  It’s about the hopes, aspirations and challenges of the American people.  And they are looking to us to come out of this convention with unity, organized and focused to take this country in a new direction.  We owe them that… this is about our country.”

UPDATE: Pelosi: “If people want to talk about drilling offshore, don’t come around California with that kind of talk.  Let’s talk about the connection between oil, which belongs to the people, and the record profits from the oil companies, and how they take it out of the ground with no royalties (in California).”  Pelosi is talking about green jobs and renewables.

“If you’re a senior, and you care about Medicare, Obama is right and John McCain is wrong.  If you care about children’s health care, where George Bush said we can’t afford covering 10 million children for one year, which costs 40 days in Iraq, Obama is right and McCain is wrong… McCain supports George Bush’s failed economic policies… and on the most important foreign policy issue of our time, Iraq, Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong.”

What’s happening around the state?

• The SacBee has some suggestions to make algebra in 8th grade possible.

• Good thing the Governor found out 50 days past the fiscal year what even Pete Wilson knew far in advance in a similar situation: Sometimes a tax increase isn’t optional. Wilson knew he had to act as cover for his Republican allies in the Legislature by offering a tax increase and working down. Arnold never figured that part out.  It’s becoming clear that there is only one word for Arnold’s administration: Ineffective.

• The SF Supervisorial campaigns this year will use a mixed public/private financing scheme. Should be a good experiment.

• Oakland is in dire straits financially, and whoops, they lost track of $48 million.