Daily Archives: January 9, 2009

Uncategorized

Thursday Open Thread

6 Comments

• The Alliance for Justice has some more information about the 501c3 status of the Mormon Church, vis a vis Proposition 8. I don’t think there is a lot to go on here, or that pushing on this is the best idea, but it is worth keeping an eye on.

• It is truly sad that the swelled ranks of the California jobless can’t get through to the unemployment office to file their claims.  I remember this being a problem the one time I used the state unemployment system several years ago, I can only imagine how impossible it is today.

• This CMR analysis touts “Obama’s hidden coattails” for Congressional candidates in California.  I believe they were hidden because there weren’t any.  Obama is the first Democrat to win the state without flipping a seat Dem since 1940.  

• The California Supreme Court made a big decision on health insurance today.  Basically the case says that ERs cannot go after patients in disputes with the insurance company. It is a big win for consumer advocates, who had argued that consumers were getting caught in the crossfire of the hospitals and the insurance companies.

• The trial of former OC Sheriff Mike “America’s Sheriff” Carona went to the jury today. We’ll let you know about the verdict just as soon as we hear.

• Expect even more stringent restrictions on smoking outside restaurant patios and doorways in Los Angeles.  It should be noted that the biggest public health benefit of the last 50 years has been cigarette taxes.  Anything that helps encourage people to quit using a substance that can kill them makes at least some sense to me, nanny-state considerations be damned.

• Newly Elected SF Supervisor David Chiu was elected Board President. He succeeds his predecessor, Aaron Peskin, in District 3 as well. Chiu was considered something of a consensus candidate. He’s a bit easier to get along with than Peskin, but will likely still take issue with the Mayor.    

Uncategorized

“Disclosure is unconstitutional”, or, the next step toward corporate theocracy in our state

6 Comments

As Robert notes below, the Yes on 8 campaign has filed suit against the constitutionality of Calfornia’s disclosure requirements, on the grounds that it allows for the harassment that Ron Prentice is expected to supply as supporting evidence for his suit.  It is quite obvious, of course, that preventing harassment of donors to opposing causes is clearly not on the forefront of Mr. Prentice’s concerns; if it were, Mr. Prentice wouldn’t have been so eager to blackmail donors to “No on 8” threatening them with exposure and harassment if they did not make an equal contribution to his point of view.

What Ron Prentice and his supporters are really after, of course, is the elimination of government transparency.  Eternal vigilance, as they say, is the price of freedom, and Ron is after the elimination of the possibility of vigilance.  Ron’s objectives are simple: he wants to make it much easier for corporations and powerful religious groups (which often overlap) to impose their will on an unsuspecting populace from behind the shadows of their out-of-state headquarters–with no ability for the people of California to know exactly who is seeking to take over their government.

One wonders, of course, what arguments Mr. Prentice’s legal team is going to come up with to make their case that elimination of government transparency is in the public interest.  I would find it extremely ironic if Mr. Prentice were to hang his hat on the right to privacy, whose elimination has been a religious conservative fantasy ever since it was found by the Warren Court.

Marriage Equality

Yes on 8 Sues to Destroy Campaign Finance Laws

2 Comments

As I warned everyone about last month, the Yes on 8 campaign – Ron Prentice and ProtectMarriage.com – have filed suit against California campaign disclosure laws:

The Proposition 8 campaign has filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of California’s campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information by campaign donors who they said have been threatened and harassed.

The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, cites numerous examples of menacing e-mails, phone calls and postcards, including death threats, allegedly made by opponents of the November ballot measure that banned same-sex measure in the state.

“This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules,” Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, said in a prepared statement.

Prentice noted that as applied to ballot measure committees, “even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents.”

It ought to be noted, for the record and in every media account on this story, that Ron Prentice signed his name to an effort to blackmail No on 8 donors back in October.

One wonders if they’re going to use themselves as an example of why the laws should be tossed.

Further, in yet another act of hypocrisy, the very people claiming that courts should not overturn “the will of the voters” are suing to undo the outcome of the Political Reform Act of 1974 – which, you guessed it, was passed by voters that year as Proposition 9.

It would be laughable if the attack wasn’t such a dangerous threat to our democracy. If they are successful, the anti-marriage forces will be able to raise FAR more money than they did this year. Companies that rely on same sex marriage supporters for their profits could take that money, give it to the haters, without the public knowing or being able to take their business elsewhere. It could provide their side with a significant financial advantage over ours in a future ballot campaign.

And it also opens the door other abuses of the initiative process, enabling it to be even more dominated by money than it already is as the true sources of large donations could more easily be masked – especially from corporations.

Uncategorized

UPDATE: Debate Tonight between myself and Mike Gibson, Hosted by Brian Dennert of the VC Star

6 Comments

Update: My debate partner, Mike Gibson, had a last-minute time conflict, and the debate has been rescheduled to 7:45pm.

There will be a live, text-only debate held tonight at 6:30pm 7:45pm at Brian Dennert Here, the main blog of the Ventura County Star.  The debate will be between myself and Mike Gibson, former Ventura City Council candidate.  The debate will last approximately an hour, take place in the comments section, and center on the question: “Is America a Center-Right Nation?”

From Dennert’s site:

The debate is only between two people. For this debate Mike Gibson, former Ventura City Council candidate, and David Atkins, blogger George Soros employee, and political consultant, will be discussing if America is a center right nation.

I will post their bios ( Mike, send me a paragraph or two) and moderate the debate.

I will also have a few other entries up. One entry will be to discuss other debate subjects my readers are interested in for upcoming weeks and another will be to give feedback to and thoughts on the debate.

It should be fun, as this is a subject on which I’ve written a thing or two or three…