by Jennifer Epps

In Canada, the only way to see a doctor is to call one up and make an appointment. Or walk in to their office. In Britain, the only way you’ll get surgery is if you actually need it. And yet State Senator Mark Leno and 44 co-sponsors want to bring this kind of healthcare system to everyone in California! Imagine.

In fact, the California legislature twice approved such a system, in which private providers carry on as independently as always but the public pays their bills directly (rather than indirectly as it does now, through a patchwork quilt of emergency care, programs to bring healthcare to the poorest and the elderly, and subsidies for insurance premiums.) Both times Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. But Senator Leno, a longtime campaigner for single-payer — a.k.a. “Medicare-for-All” — has brought the bill back again as SB 810. Last week, the bill fell just two votes shy of passage with a tally of 19-15 in favor. (It needs 21 to pass because it requires more than a simple majority.) Sen. Leno plans to push for another vote under Reconsideration, because several Democratic state senators abstained, but the deadline to win their support is today.

(Edit by Brian…More over the flip)

This single-payer bill is championed by Campaign for a Healthy California, a coalition which includes the California Nurses Association, Physicians for a National Health Program, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Progressive Democrats of America, California School Employee Association, Democracy for America, the California Health Professional Student Alliance, and many others. They have put out action alerts to supporters of SB 810 to call on five key state senators to vote Yes: Los Angeles area state senators Alex Padilla, Rod Wright, and Ron Calderon; San Diego area senator Juan Vargas, and Fresno/Bakersfield senator Michael Rubio. If supporters can bring just two of these state senators around in time for a Reconsideration vote today, then patients in California could very soon be able to choose which doctor to see (rather than submitting to a ‘network’ or their HMO). And the leading cause of bankruptcy for both the insured and uninsured – medical bills – could be eliminated.

A lot of people – i.e. all other advanced democracies in the world – think access to healthcare is a basic human right, and that organizing that access is one of the functions of a government and of a civilized society. In fact, in poll after poll, the majority of Americans support a publicly-funded universal health care system as well.

But never mind that. This is a time of economic struggle, an overstretched state budget, and financial uncertainty. Giving the government the job of administering health insurance at this particular juncture is above all else…the most fiscally conservative thing to do.

SB 810 would eliminate private health insurance entirely. All Californians’ healthcare costs would be paid for from one big pool. It’s just like the way people get insurance coverage now, except much much simpler, everyone would be covered, and the profit motive would be removed. And making health insurance a government-run program would dramatically reduce a huge portion of health care expenses that are eaten away by needlessly complicated administration costs. It’s the exact opposite of what the bill’s detractors pretend. Rather than creating more bureaucracy or paperwork, SB 810 would very quickly whittle down the costs of administering healthcare, currently at 33% of California’s total healthcare spending, to under 5%.

Providers would only have to bill one entity, a new California Healthcare Agency, and would have no need to chase after patients for unpaid balances, or argue with insurers about whether the insured really does need that organ transplant or dialysis. That’s how Sen. Leno’s site can claim that SB 810 would save California $20 billion in the very first year by reducing administrative costs alone.

Moreover, health insurance commissioners would not need to watch over insurers and fight their premium hikes on behalf of consumers (health insurance premiums grow 4 times faster than wages). After SB 810, there would be no premiums. There would be no deductibles. There would be no co-pays. There would be no private health insurance.

These companies would still find a way to sell insurance for non-essential services — just as in Canada insurers offer policies for things like private rooms should the insured be hospitalized. Insurance companies are nothing if not resourceful, and we shouldn’t worry about them too much. The big change would be that with a single-payer program, insurance companies could no longer build their business by keeping the whole health system stratified.

The U.S. spends twice as much of its GDP on healthcare as other wealthy nations do. It spends more, and gets less. Americans receive less doctor consultations, hospital care, and surgery than people in other industrialized nations, yet our healthcare costs are higher. Insurance companies, by insisting on their privileged position as middlemen between patients and physicians, balloon healthcare costs out of all proportion. Far from delivering medical care more cheaply, these companies take money from patients – and from non-patients, like those who put off getting care because they can’t afford their deductibles or co-pays but who keep sending in premiums to ward off catastrophe – and apply it to profit dividends, CEOs’ bonuses and even marketing to win over more customers. And all we get in exchange is the 37th best healthcare in the world, according to the WHO.

In addition to Big Insurance, we have Big Pharma driving up healthcare costs. Countries like Canada began long ago to use the leverage of government to negotiate down drug prices, but in the U.S., the government behaves as if it is powerless in the face of whatever pharmaceutical companies wish to charge. SB 810 would tackle prescription drug pricing in California by using its bulk purchasing power. Sen. Leno estimates that such savings on medication, as well as equipment, would save the state $5.2 billion.

Lack of or inadequate insurance leads many to wait until their health is seriously threatened and then seek care in Emergency wards, rather than getting preventative screenings or catching the problem at the initial symptoms. This is not only costly to the hospital which provides the Emergency services, and to taxpayers who have to make up the costs, but it escalates costs in general, since by the time these patients seek care they are in need of much greater intervention. SB 810 would transfer the emphasis to preventative care and primary care, and thereby save Californians an estimated $3.4 billion.

In short, Sen. Leno maintains that SB 810 would be fully funded from the money we already spend on health care, and that, to boot, California would save a total of $29 billion just in the first year.

Considering that these cost-cutting measures would completely solve the state’s fiscal crisis without either cutting social services or raising taxes, if Republicans really were fiscal conservatives they should have jumped on board with full support for SB 810. But of course insurance and pharmaceutical companies would be pretty unhappy with them, and campaign donations would stop flowing.

Considering that the Republicans’ objections to the federal Affordable Healthcare Act was that it would force people to buy private health insurance – the result of the Obama Administration’s barring single-payer advocates from all planning sessions – you would think that they would all be in favor of the freedom that SB 810 would bring. But of course it’s hardly the freedom of the 99% that matters.

SB 810 has strong backing from ordinary, non-radical Californians. Sen. Leno’s website lists 172 groups (unions and professional association, religious groups, city governments, Democratic Clubs, etc.) who endorse SB 810 and who have been working hard to make California the 2nd state in the nation to enact single-payer.

Single-payer advocates affiliated with the Campaign for a Healthy California include the American Medical Student Association, Consumer Federation of California, League of Women Voters of California, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Amnesty International USA, California National Organization of Women, Courage Campaign, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and California Faculty Association.

The bill’s champions expect that Governor Jerry Brown would happily follow in the footsteps of Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin and sign a single-payer bill. (The passage last spring of a publicly-run health insurance system made Vermont the first state in the U.S. to take this bold step.) If Sacramento fails to pass SB 810 this year because one Democratic senator voted No (Calderon) and four Democrats abstained (Padilla, Wright, Vargas, and Rubio), there will be a lot of very disappointed people in this state.

There will also continue to be 7 million Californians without insurance. Even after the federal Affordable Healthcare Act kicks in, 3 million Californians will remain uninsured, says Sen. Leno. Despite the fuss the country went through over health insurance reform, so-called ‘Obamacare’ would only manage to cover four out of five at best. And it is predicted that many who will still be unable to afford health insurance will choose to pay the fine instead. We will still have a tiered health care system. And we will stay pay more for less.

Alex Padilla (Pacoima/LA area)
Capitol – 916-651-4020
District – 818-901-5588

Rod Wright (Los Angeles area)
(916) 651-4025
(310) 412-0393

Juan Vargas (San Diego area)
Sac: (916) 651-4040
Dist: (619) 409-7690

Michael Rubio (Fresno/Bakersfield area)
Sac: (916) 651-4016
Dist: (661) 395-2620

Ron Calderon (Los Angeles area)
Sac: (916) 651-4030
Dist: (323) 890-2790

For Hunter S. Thompson*, R.I.P.

Much as I hate to stray from the standards of objective journalism, you may as well know from the outset that I am writing this thing under duress, having been dragged out from under my bed by several thugs sent over by pencil-pushers in the editorial department – literal-minded bureaucratic types who do not appreciate my having spent three days straight in a coma, inhaling dust bunnies the size of small goats, instead of writing my article. This is a lamentable failure of imagination on the pencil pushers’ part, considering how on Monday I had to endure almost an hour and a half in the same room as George W. Bush, having to listen to him deliver platitudes and “jokes” to 3,100 devotees at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA. It ought to be obvious that I have sustained lasting, severe damage from the experience, not least of all from the tension of sitting there, wanting to rush the stage, yet knowing that I’d be torn limb from limb by the Orange County multitude – and that’s just counting the old ladies. I was also afraid, as I sat there watching the whole Satanic ritual, that my eye sockets might get burned out of my skull. I have not yet precluded this possibility.

Ah, Jesus, I have to get a grip on myself. The apes sent by Editorial are watching me write this and they are not to be trifled with. More to the point, if I don’t finish, I believe they may take my liquor as a perverse form of compensation, and I’m not expecting a delivery for another two hours — so it will be very tough going if they do. The illicit substances I had in my pocket rolled out while I was under the bed and the dog may already have licked them up, so things are looking pretty dire. Come to think of it, where is that dog?

But I digress. The theme of the Bush appearance was “We are well and truly fucked,” although technically, it was called a “Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Service”, and the devout crowd in attendance left with big smiles on their faces. Pastor Rick Warren, who is “America’s most powerful religious leader” per a 2008 Time magazine cover, hosted the ex-Prez on a talk show-like stage set, and webcast the chit-chat live via his “Purpose-Driven” network to 164 countries (which is more countries than have signed the land mine ban treaty, but who’s counting?). This is the same Rick Warren who Obama picked to give the invocation at his inauguration, pissing off the LGBT community early so he could get to work pissing off other progressives on his list once his presidency officially began.

I looked for the picketers from CODEPINK and the Orange County Peace Coalition at Bush’s book promotion, but the 50 or so protesters were banished to the outer limits of the sprawling mega-church grounds. Tickets were free to go hear Bush sell his memoir, Decision Points, but they had been handed out over a week in advance, so I gazed uncertainly at the hordes pouring in. I considered just skipping the whole thing and going out on the town, but I wasn’t sure if Lake Forest knew that Prohibition had been repealed. Five minutes before the doors were about to close, I asked the Will Call table if they had an extra ticket, and a woman smiled and handed me one with a flourish: “It’s your lucky day.” That was not exactly my sentiment, but I obviously had to attend now. I went into an adjacent restroom and hid the protest sign that had been in my satchel, and made it through the bag-check without incident.

After a woman sang an extreme vibralto version of the national anthem that would not have been out of place in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, Rick Warren’s wife Kay expressed her gratitude that she was raised to love her country, and a video extolled Bush’s righteousness. Then Pastor Warren and the ex-Prez came out together.

Bush lounged comfortably in a recliner while the pastor all but drooled, asking him questions for which the word “softball” is inadequate – I’d call them “shuttlecock” questions but I think the LGBT community hates Pastor Warren enough as it is. The questions revolved around how to be a good leader, in ways that the audience could try at home or at the office, i.e.: “How do you deal with the egos of the people you are assembling?” (If there’d been more time, perhaps Warren would also have asked for tips on writing good memos and whether Casual Fridays are a good idea). I had gone in with a vague plan to guffaw loudly at every lame-brained thing the Crawford reptile said, but evidently the pastor was careful to only ask questions Bush was expecting, because the kind of stumblings and circuitous sentences we’re used to from Bush were in short supply. I also ended up changing my plan because my vocal chords are not in peak condition these days — for which I blame my attorney, who regularly insists that we go out after midnight to howl at the moon. I’ve noticed increasingly thick hair growing on his back, but I don’t like to be impolite.

Dammit, there I am on another tangent. Writing about politics has clearly sapped me of my moral strength, but the goons Editorial sent over are scratching up my wood floor with their jackboots, so I really do have to bite down and push through.

Bush kept describing what it was like to lead “an organization” – as if he’d been a high school principal, or the head of his neighborhood watch patrol. “There’s nothing worse than trying to lead an organization and be full of self-pity”, the Supreme Court’s anointed one remarked thoughtfully. “‘Why me?’ It just doesn’t work.”

The pterodactyl from Texas bragged that he did not believe in “surrounding” himself with “sycophants”, because there’s a “tendency for people to say ‘oh boy, you’re looking pretty’ when you’re not.” The audience took him at his word that he wanted advisors who were “willing to share opinions in an open and honest way”, conveniently forgetting about Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, and others who apparently tried to share opinions. The CIA also comes to mind, people I don’t normally feel a lot of sympathy for – and people who may very well have tampered with my GPS recently, since it told me to turn right when I needed to turn left, and when turning right propelled me straight into oncoming traffic. But nonetheless, the CIA comes to mind, as an agency whose skepticism about Saddam’s alleged WMDs and the wisdom of invading Iraq were not welcome in the Bush White House. Oh yes, and then there were the U.N. inspectors. And critics of the Administration’s policies of surveillance, detention, and torture. Somehow, they all missed the Decider’s open-mindedness.

W. did actually wrap up his declaration of tolerance with: “once you decide, they need to say ‘Yessir,’ or they’re out”. One of the few scraps of honesty in the whole evening. But his audience got off on the display of power. As did the fundamentalist pastor, who was getting a little flushed sticking his tongue that far up Bush’s fundament, and who interjected at one point: “it’s a theocracy, and you’re Theo.”

The worshippers noticed no disconnect when Bush advised using “good judgment” to put “people around you who you can trust.” In that crowd, I didn’t think it was prudent to bring up Donald Rumsfeld, who sent the troops to war without enough body or Humvee armor, or Alberto Gonzalez, who ‘couldn’t recall’ details of the firing of federal attorneys, or Michael Brown, the former unsuccessful horse commissioner turned disastrous FEMA administrator, or Harriet Miers, who Bush trusted to be a Supreme Court justice until senators were appalled at her ignorance of the law. Besides, as I’ve said, my voice was a little too hoarse to carry in that enormous stadium. I may have to change my cigarette brand.

But let’s not be uncharitable. Who would want to be a downer, when Bush was being so upbeat? The conversation did touch on the low points of his presidency – Warren, channeling Barbara Walters for a moment, asked him very sympathetically: “You clearly weren’t listening to the polls. What kept you going?”, but Bush replied “Belief.” #43 admitted that “it’s hard to relive those days”, but his faith kept him going – allowed him to endure the hardships of…he didn’t say, but I guess you’d call it ‘democracy’. He told the Saddleback Church: “you’ve got to tune those people out. They’re acting out of spite and…emotions that are negative.” With an approval rating below 30% by the end of his presidency, he must have had some industrial strength earplugs.

The most important thing about leadership, he told us, is to have “a set of principles you will not violate.” One of his key principles was: “All life is precious”. Warren smiled and nodded, discreetly refraining to mention the 1800+ lives lost in Katrina, the 3000 lost on 9/11, or the close to 5,000 troops lost in Iraq thanks to Bush. The ex-Prez shared another heartfelt principle, reposing leisurely: “to whom much is given, much is required”. He did not, however, explain how this principle related to his lack of any response to direct verbal warnings that Hurricane Katrina would breach the New Orleans levees. In fact, when Warren even mentioned Katrina, Bush quickly changed the subject — and Laura has probably since struck the pastor from their Christmas card list.

A slogan that came up often during the evening, causing a tremor just below my right eye, was “it’s not all about you” – a slogan, apparently, that Warren favors and which Bush feels is the secret of good leadership. King George made sure we knew that he did not view his job as “serving George Bush” but “serving the United States of America.” This from the guy who oversaw eight years of troubled times, yet told his wife that “the worst moment” of his presidency was being called a racist by rapper Kayne West in a Katrina telethon. But the horrors of Katrina, 9/11, economic collapse, two occupations, deterioration between Israel and the Palestinians, and the vilification of America worldwide seem to have vanished from W.’s mind. He exclaimed to Pastor Warren with religious conviction that every day in the White House had been “joyous” for him.

It was at that point that DeDe Miller’s brain exploded. Cindy Sheehan’s sister, unable to take anymore, stood up and harangued Bush at length from the back of the hall. Without a mike her words didn’t travel far, but it’s safe to guess she was demanding how Bush could’ve been joyous during a bogus war that had taken the life of her nephew Casey and thousands of others. About 15 minutes later, a second woman, in a CODEPINK-style Statue of Liberty tiara, disrupted the event and held up a sign. And near the end of the event, a third woman also stood up near the front and yelled at Bush. Each was mostly ignored by those on stage and in the audience, although one guy seemed to think the third protester was a lamp at home – he kept clapping abruptly in her face. Each woman was soon pulled out by dark-clad personnel and vanished behind a mysterious row of black curtains, never to be seen again.

W. did explain his reasons for the invasion of Iraq: to combat a dictator “enriched by oil”, with “the capacity to build weapons”, and worst of all, an “aggressive attitude toward the United States.” Many in the audience nodded encouragingly. It was all the explanation they needed.

Bush Jr. also recalled his emotions on 9/11: “anger”, “unspeakable sadness,” and feeling “helpless”, but then his “instincts kicked in” – though not immediately, because “The leader of an organization cannot overreact…I made the decision just to wait.” He made the decision to wait and then overreact, I guess (starting a new Cold War-like era of belligerence against the entire world, and so on). But at least, while he was in that classroom, he avoided upsetting the children. And when he made that first speech about 9/11, he “wanted to console and help people try to heal” — it was only on the next day and subsequent seven years that he wanted to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

But this crowd had a special relationship with Bejesus: when Bush recalled using his 9/14/01 cathedral speech to “try to start the grieving process” and yet also to “let the enemy know we’re going to come and get them,” the congregation jumped to their feet in a thunderous ovation. It may have been their favorite part of the whole evening. Bush had actually been trying to say that he was worried in 2001 about expressing a war-like sentiment in a church, but he looked at the bloodthirsty throng of Orange County citizens in the Saddleback Church on Mon., and didn’t even bother to finish his sentence.

After about an hour, my teeth had been ground down to nubs and I was beginning to suspect that the relentless glare of the lights on the audience was emitting brainwashing rays, but I was afraid my only chance to make it safely to the exits would be to blend in with the crowd, so I endured. Meanwhile, the congregation was applauding madly again — Bush had mentioned his tax cuts. The pastor grinned: “we like those. We want them to continue.” I wondered what tax cuts have to do with Christianity, until I remembered that the gigantic Saddleback Church, which is spread out over an estate of vast parking lots, eateries, and other buildings, serves one of the 100 most affluent cities with a pop. over 50,000 in the United States.

In a gee-shucks way that his audience lapped up, Bush also stressed that he didn’t know much about economics, but when told of the fiscal crisis, “didn’t want to gamble on whether or not we had a depression.” And so, this former friend of Ken Lay, “decided to use your money to bail out Wall Street, and I was really unhappy about it, but nonetheless I do believe that decision saved the country from a depression.”

The Clowner-in-Chief spent a fair amount of time talking about humor and how important it is to him, since it’s a “sign of a relaxed personality” — quite evidently a priority for him in times of national crisis. He joked frequently during the dialogue, impressing the audience with his modesty and folksiness while turning it around at the same time. For example, he quipped that people are surprised he can write a book, since they don’t even think he can read one. Then he casually mentioned that the way he read 92 history books in one year was to read on the exercise machine and wherever he could. Warren did not ask if TinTin comics count as history books.

The evening was almost over when Bush proclaimed that “Everyone loves America.” His audience seemed momentarily confused, since after all he’d spent his presidency telling us that we were surrounded by people who hate us for our freedom. Then, a Middle Eastern-looking man in a somber suit, sitting by himself, stood up from the very back of the auditorium and began purposefully walking forward. It was at this dramatic moment that I remembered there had been no metal detectors at the entrance; security seemed to remember it at just that moment too. But the gentleman turned to the nearest exit and went to find the restroom. Later it turned out he was Latino.

When it was all over, a complete stranger said to me, beaming: “It doesn’t get any better than that.” By that point I had lost all ability to form words, so I merely glowered back. Before crawling into my car with its “Jesus called: he wants his religion back” bumper sticker, I checked all my tires and lights for damage. Then I realized that they would have had no need to assault my car. Decision Points is currently at #1 on the L.A. Times hardcover non-fiction list.

Our efforts to move the book to the True Crime, Fantasy, and Psychotherapy sections of our local bookstores have clearly been inadequate. And when a man that the Mayor of London has warned might be arrested as a war criminal if he shows his face in the borough can get away with telling such whoppers — and the public’s response is to think it would make a good Christmas gift – then it would indeed seem that we are well and truly fucked.

However, one small glimmer of hope struck me. Twice during the book talk, Bush referred to the time when “it looked like Iraq was lost.” Bush said that. As in, Mr. Chauncey Gardiner, who kept perpetually saying that the U.S. was just about to claim victory in Iraq, any minute now. He didn’t even believe it himself? It seems like a chink in the armor. Perhaps there are others. Of course he’s trying to resurrect his image, but he clearly is aware of his unpopularity; when the Saddleback Church audience stood and cheered one of his remarks, he ad-libbed “Thanks. I forgot what it was like.” That lifts the gloom a little, to hear that the delusional narcissist is aware he’s not universally admired.

Hell, I might even be persuaded to place a bet on justice being done and the old man getting a fair trial some day. Sometimes you just have to place your bets on principle. In any case, I’ve been known to back a few losing causes in my day.

(* by Jennifer Epps, in tribute to Dr. Gonzo)

There was a very large elephant in the L.A. City Council chamber on Jan. 28th, but unlike the proverbial pachyderm, everyone was talking about him. His name is Billy, and he’s a 23-year old Asian elephant who has lived many years in a 0.6-acre, concrete enclosure at the L.A. Zoo. For 2 years, he has been alone; since the Zoo (under public pressure) sent their female elephant Ruby to a sanctuary when her mental and physical health was declining. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has said “elephants should be in sanctuaries and not in zoos”, requested a review of the exhibit. The subsequent Dec. 2005 report advised expanding the yard space to 3.0 acres and getting softer substrate. On April 19, 2006 the Council approved a massive building project, meant for several elephants, called “the Pachyderm Forest.” But in Dec. 2008, they halted construction to consider Councilmember Tony Cardenas’ new motion to close the exhibit and send Billy to roam a spacious elephant sanctuary instead (i.e. P.A.W.S., in San Andreas, where Ruby is.) Cardenas made the motion in Nov. because he felt that when the Council approved the project, they did not have all the information. “This city can’t afford to build a $40 million elephant mortuary,” he said in Nov.

On Weds., L.A. City Hall’s council chamber was so packed it was standing-room only (with spillover encouraged to go to another room, and watch on closed-circuit TV). Animal lovers came out en masse both for and against the proposal, both sides seemingly convinced that the other side doesn’t care about animals. Passions were intense, and many of the over-40 public comments made (20 on each side) were full of vitriol against their opponents. A further 60-plus requests to speak, (about 30 pro and 30 con) had to go unfulfilled. Council President Eric Garcetti warned those assembled three times not to boo during speakers’ remarks (it was the L.A. Zoo crowd booing). There was cheering, clapping, groaning, jeering, and some speaking out of turn. You could even say “it was a zoo”. But meanwhile, back at the actual zoo, solitary Billy probably spent much of the time bobbing his head up and down, in the unnatural repetitive motion called “stereotypy”, which is a sign of schizophrenia in humans and something close to it in zoo animals. The L.A. Zoo has claimed it isn’t a sign of mental illness at all, but apparently they didn’t look up ‘stereotypy’ in that kooky radical troublemaking book: Webster’s Dictionary.

See my Jan. 24th video of Billy’s head-bobbing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Or another user’s video of it, with voice-over explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Cardenas’ motion failed 11 to 4; the expansion of the elephant exhibit will continue and Billy has to wait for it. One way of looking at this is that the “Free Billy” movement picked up 2 votes from the original 13 to 2 vote approving the “Pachyderm Forest.” But they also lost progressive Councilmember Bill Rosendahl’s expected vote. He has explicitly stated before he’s “not for elephants in the zoo,” but Rosendahl voted to keep building because the report from City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna convinced him that it would cost more to discontinue the project now than to finish it.  (Similarly, an L.A. Times editorial last weekend recommended continuing even though it had opposed the project in 2006 for fear it might not be large enough. The Zoo touts the new Times op-ed even though it’s the kind of lukewarm endorsement we heard at the beginning of the Iraq War: well, it’s a terrible idea, but we’re in it now, so we can’t pull out.)

In any case, the Council vote is not very surprising in the face of busloads of personnel and supporters co-opted by the Zoo; 27,000 signatures the Zoo gathered (they have a little advantage there, since their rivals don’t have an established, 113-acre entertainment attraction of their own in which to gather signatures); and a Fairbank & associates opinion survey reporting that Los Angelenos, 3 to 1, favor the completion of the exhibit. Councilmembers faced with all that are, in the end, politicians, and almost half of them are up for re-election on March 3rd.

But this Fairbank poll is interesting. It was likely commissioned by the L.A. Zoo, which issued a Jan. 26th press release about the results. If you ask me, it looks like a push poll, since the questions match many L.A. Zoo talking points, asking: whether respondents “agreed that closing the habitat and shipping Billy to a distant location will deprive schoolchildren and their families of the opportunity to learn about the threat of extinction facing Asian elephants”; whether they favored the Zoo “teaching wildlife conservation, breeding additional Asian elephants and helping prevent the extinction of the species” by building a new habitat; and whether they minded “hundreds of job losses that would result from shutting down the project in the middle of a deep economic downturn.” I’m not sure if that was exact poll wording, but that’s how the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association (GLAZA) relayed it. It’s amazing, actually, that in each of those cases 30% did resist the way the Zoo wanted them to answer. Apparently, the survey also made a point of reminding respondents that voters had passed a Zoo Bond Measure to improve animal exhibits. (Which many “Free Billy” types seem to think is a fabulous idea, actually; several of those commenting at the meeting remarked there are other inadequate exhibits at the zoo.)

What GLAZA doesn’t say is whether those surveyed were asked: if they knew that 13 elephants have died at the L.A. Zoo in 30 years; whether they knew that half of those had never reached age 20; whether they knew that all but one of those 13 showed “various states of degenerative joint disease and fatal orthopedic disabilities associated with lack of mobility due to close captivity”, per Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s letter to L.A. City Council urging closure of the exhibit. (Yes, I know, he’s not from here, but he speaks against injustice and cruelty everywhere.) I also wonder if the survey mentioned that it was after years of condemnation, and new American Zoo Association rules for elephant management, that GLAZA proposed to expand its elephant enclosure.

As an L.A. Zoo member and a PETA member, I was getting emails from both camps. So I compared the arguments made by both sides in advance of the City Council meeting. The Zoo had trotted out animal TV show host Jack Hanna, who spoke in generalities in a video on their site. He exclaimed that the L.A. Zoo had “phenomenal habitats from day one”. Really? It would seem even the zoo would disagree, considering how much money they put into reforming their three great apes exhibits and now their Pachyderm Forest. He estimated that the new exhibit’s design is 10% of their total area. Well, actually the proposed 6 acre site is 5% of their total 113 acres. And only 3.6 of those will be roaming areas for the elephants. Incidentally, Kucinich’s Nov. 2008 letter noted that the home range of a male Asian Elephant in its natural state is 200 sq. km. – 235 sq. km. The smaller number of those two is 8,237 times the outer perimeter of the new exhibit.

Hanna went on to make the kind of illogical comment one used to hear at the height of the Bush Administration: i.e. what are you protesting in the streets for, things can’t really be as bad as you say, or people would be out in the streets! In the video Hanna admits how bad zoos used to be in past decades, but assures viewers “that’s no longer the case,” because “people in their communities are demanding the best for the animals.” His thesis being; so ignore those people in the community demanding the best for Billy!

Sounding alarmingly like Fox News, the video asked Hanna what are the “intentions” of the activists who want Billy removed from the zoo. (Asking the favored ‘A’ side what the disfavored ‘B’ side is all about is a patented Fox News propaganda device.) Hanna didn’t worry about putting words in the opponents’ mouths, though, and speculated that they want to “put everything back out in the wild”. Granted, some elephant advocacy groups cite how elephants live in the wild, but obviously, that’s for comparison, to illustrate how far off their needs are from a typical captivity. And to show that being able to roam on sanctuary acreage and bond with other elephants is at least closer to that state than the current or planned L.A. Zoo exhibit.

Amusingly, Hanna borrowed another favorite Fox News angle: dismissing “celebrities” for involvement in a political cause. What do you call Jack Hanna if not a celebrity? And moreover, musician Slash and actress Betty White have also leapt to GLAZA’s defense.

Zoo Trustee Betty White claims that those concerned that Billy might die a premature death at the zoo “would rather see species die out than to thrive in accredited zoos.” Now, is that fair? Her two-page message in the zoo’s winter newsletter goes into detail about “animal activists” (it must be ‘activist’ that’s a dirty word, because she likes the word ‘animal’). She accuses them of wanting “to remove all elephants from all zoos. And let’s not kid ourselves, folks, it will not stop with elephants. Giraffes will be next. If they win this battle, they will not stop until zoos themselves are extinct.”

That kind of alarmist rhetoric sounds like the Prop 8 campaign: if you allow gay marriage, then next it’ll be polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality! They’ll be teaching our children to be gay in schools! Run for your lives!

White is no fool and I applaud her decades-long activism, even if she doesn’t applaud others’, but could we have a rational argument, please? Clearly, zoos are in no danger of disappearing. Maybe we can eventually get rid of the substandard ones – the roadside zoos, the ones with wholly ignorant staff, the ones that don’t breed their animals or have any conservation aims – but White and GLAZA reject such zoos anyway. Merely asking the L.A. Zoo to prove they have the ability or expertise, in light of their elephant track record, ought to be seen as completely reasonable and no nefarious motives necessary. A zoo is like a hospital, or a university. Some departments might be brilliantly successful; others might be total failures. You should look at them case-by-case. I think the Zoo has done quite well for its great apes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Also, one often sees happy family units there (koala bears, snow leopards, various lemurs, etc.). See baby koala here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… .

But not all animal exhibits are created equal — meerkats, for instance, one of which was depicted in The Lion King, live in colonies of 20-50 in the wild. They have such a sense of social responsibility that they rotate guard duty. The L.A. Zoo exhibit now has one meerkat, because all the others have died.

It is totally fair game for the general public to scrutinize how well different areas of the zoo are working, just like they do their police or school board. And the institution has the right to defend itself. But they don’t get to say only their opinion is valid. Hospitals screw up in services to humans, and you don’t necessarily have to be a neurosurgeon to notice it. At the meeting, as in their publicity, GLAZA frequently claimed that they were the only proper authority as to whether their animals were thriving as they should. Not cool.

The zoo brought out longtime staffers, and some fired-up volunteers, to be mightily offended, offended I tell you, by the accusations of past cruelty in curbing elephant behavior and of negligence in the deaths of a dozen elephants. But they did not provide an alternative explanation. It would be so much more reassuring if the L.A. Zoo admitted that the elephants didn’t just die because of bad luck. One would have more faith that they have learned what to do and that, going forward, they will understand and be able to meet the needs of elephants (for exercise, soft substrate, stimulation, social bonds).

I was not initially sure which side to be on regarding this Pachyderm Forest. But the Zoo has talked me into it, or rather, out of it. Though I’m a dues-paying member – and you’d think, as such, owed a straight answer – I have been sent emotional appeals that vilify their critics and skirt the basic issues, which ought to be simple enough to lay out. Is the projected exhibit large enough? How much space will each elephant have and how much do they need according to AZA? Is there evidence that it’s even possible to breed elephants in captivity? Instead, we get red herrings.

At City Council on Weds., several witnesses from the Zoo side derided the involvement of “celebrities” sitting across the aisle from them and urging Billy’s release: Cher, Lily Tomlin, Kathryn Joosten (“Desperate Housewives”, “The West Wing”), Bob Barker (who offered to pay $1.5 million to transfer Billy to P.A.W.S. near Sacramento), Kevin Nealon, Robert Culp (who a year ago tried unsuccessfully to sue the City and Zoo Director John Lewis), and I also thought I saw Anjelica Huston. The Zoo crowd was able to scoff because their own publicity gimmicks — Betty White, Jack Hanna, and Slash — did not show up that day. But the Zoo staff who spoke also put down their opponents as uninformed busybodies, despite the expert witnesses present who are critical of the Zoo and its plans. Since the mainstream media narrative of the elephant exhibit pits celeb amateurs against L.A. Zoo professionals, we should look at some of those on the “Free Billy” side:

1.) Dr. Joyce Poole: a wild elephant biologist and author of Coming of Age with Elephants, Poole made the crucial discovery that male elephants experience “musth” (regular sexual periods of extreme aggression). In 2005, she discovered that elephants learn to make sounds by imitating each other – the only land mammals besides primates to do so. She has worked with Cynthia Moss, the animal behaviorist at the center of two PBS Nature films on African elephants. And Poole was named the director of elephant conservation and management for the Kenya Wildlife Service.

2.) David Hancocks: a zoo architect and zoo director for thirty years, Hancocks wrote the book A Different Nature, an analytical and comparative history of zoos. He is an expert on evaluating the design of different species’ exhibits. He is not “anti-zoo”, he values the potential of zoos to do good; but he is an advocate for habitats and programs that serve the animals.

3.) Dr. Jennifer Conrad: a former L.A. Zoo vet who treated animals on five continents, including elephants in Asia and Africa, Conrad was also head veterinarian at a wildlife sanctuary. As a result, she created “The Paw Project” in Los Angeles to rehabilitate big cats’ paws which had been damaged by the discredited practice of declawing; she led teams of surgeons in operations on circus tigers and the like to help reverse their crippling. She also works as an on-set vet for films.

These are impressively credentialed people who think the L.A. Zoo is not doing right by its current, past, or future elephants. Others urging the Council to remove elephants from the L.A. Zoo included two spokespeople from the Shambala Elephant Reserve, and Will Travers (Jr.) of Born Free USA, this country’s legislative advocacy arm of the famous wilderness reserve in Africa.

Their theme is not some abstract notion that zoos are evil, but the very practical concern that Billy’s health and life are in danger. On Weds. a large blow-up photo of Billy’s foot was presented by Councilmember Rosendahl to the L.A. Zoo vet seated with Zoo Director John Lewis in the Council’s inner circle; when the vet was asked if this meant Billy may be developing foot problems, like the zoo’s elephants Gita and Tara who died at the zoo in the last 4 years, the vet couldn’t say. It seemed he had no updates on the condition of Billy’s feet, despite all the firestorm and all the publicity effort by the zoo about their excellent elephant management. But we heard assurances that the keepers give him daily foot care.

Rosendahl requested that Dr. Conrad be allowed to give a contrasting opinion; she answered that she doubted the zoo staff were even able to give Billy foot care right now, since he had been in musth, “in rut”, since Nov., and was too dangerous to work with. She told the Council he’s “in musth an abnormally long time”. (Indeed, whenever I visit, no matter what time of year, he seems to be in musth: it’s evident by the liquid streaming from his eyes and the urine that dribbles down his leg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… )

Conrad asserted that the reason for his long musth is that “he’s fat, because he can’t exercise.”

Bizarrely, the Council did not discuss what one might think would be at least a compromise: ship Billy out temporarily to P.A.W.S. while the exhibit is being built, thus letting him run around on acres and acres of grass instead of a hard surface and, hopefully, protect his feet from dangerous infections, give him exercise, and help him get a break from musth. The Zoo cheerleaders (who filled rows of the chamber, attired in green T-shirts, with a pep rally energy) were insistent that Billy belonged in “the only home he’s ever known”, and that “he loves his family.” It’s a little like saying Steve McQueen’s character in Papillon enjoyed his cell, right in the middle of the scene of him  going crazy in solitary.