Some many not know that I’m a native Virginian. As such, I know and have known countless Hokies in my limited days.  The numbers seem to keep rising, so there isn’t much to say.  I’ll just steal from The West Wing at this point.

The streets of Heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They’re our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of Heaven are too crowded with angels. But every time we think we’ve measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we’re reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. This is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard; we will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes, and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Speak of whatever you feel the need to share.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Vista) is hosting Cafe San Diego today, and has started the conversation with a few words about the Carol Lam situation:

I recognize that every U.S. attorney has to balance needs and resources, but it’s clear from information released by the Justice Department that the Southern District of California U.S. Attorney’s Office lagged behind the other four districts on the U.S./Mexico border in prosecuting border crimes. I never asked that Carol Lam be fired, but I was adamant over a three-year period that the situation with smugglers in San Diego needed to be addressed.

This is supposedly an interactive situation, so feel free to cruise over to the comments section if you have anything to say to or ask of the Congressman.

UPDATES ON THE FLIP

Update 1:

My first question:

“You say “I recognize that every U.S. attorney has to balance needs and resources,” so my question is whether you’ve attempted to increase the resources available to USAs around the country? If so, what has been the problem, and if not, then in what way are you not attempting to dictate the priorities of the US Attorney’s office? Further, given your acknowledgment of the limited capacity of Ms. Lam’s office, would you have preferred to trade the Cunningham, Wilkes, Foggo, and other corruption investigations for increased prosecution of immigration cases?”

Issa has written his follow up to the 8 posts to his original post, mentioning his efforts to increase resources for the office and responding in part:

I disagree, however, with the notion that Carol Lam had an “either/or” choice between prosecuting Cunningham and those who traffic human beings across our borders.

In regard to the question about finite resources and Carol Lam not being told that she needed to improve her border crimes record, I do have some concerns. Carol Lam testified before Congress that Justice Department officials did not make clear to her that she needed to make border crimes and gun crimes more of a priority.

My response will be up shortly wondering whether, since he doesn’t have a problem with Lam being overzealous in other areas, he’s just saying she’s lazy?

Update 2: Josh Marshall at TPM is also watching to see what Issa has to say.  The comments are getting increasingly combative, but if Issa responds again, my comment is first in line.

Syndicated columnist and member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board Ruben Navarrette Jr. has been fluffing up Alberto Gonzales a lot recently (March 7, March 21), so it should come as no suprise that he’s continuing to shovel muck today in a special CNN commentary.  What’s shocking is the entirely new level to which he takes the insanity.

To be up front, there’s a halfway legitimate point in all of Navarrette’s mess, which is that accepting Gonzales as a scapegoat when it’s the White House and Karl Rove behind this whole mess, is not a victory.  I’m all for Rove paying for what he did as well.  But he frames his whole argument in disgusting racist terms and tries to marginalize anyone who would have a gripe against “an honorable public servant … [and] … a straight shooter” by assuming that there’s no way that criticism could be fair or justified.

He’s good enough to give us a rundown of the people who object to Gonzales’ performance as Attorney General and makes it pretty clear that the list at this point includes virtually everyone except President Bush.  But apparently that’s just because everyone is wrong, and most of them just hate a successful Hispanic.

Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can’t claim the credit for his life’s accomplishments and because they can’t get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn’t owe them a damn thing.

Yes, that’s right. It’s all those racist white liberals who insist on keeping minorities down and can’t stand it when one of them gets power,  It’s because he doesn’t genuflect at the altar of white people that he’s hated.  It can’t possibly have anything to do with his actual job performance.  Or his systematic evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.  Which is, ultimately, where the racial argument breaks down horribly.  Navarrette would have us believe that Gonzales can’t possibly be getting criticism that’s not infused with racist bitterness.  But the flipside of this argument is that, because of his race, he gets a free pass.  Well I’m sorry, but that isn’t how it works.  You do the job and you answer for your performance.

He also argues that Democrats just pose “with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo” while the real uplifting of the Hispanic community, entirely and solely in the form of Alberto Gonzales, has been done by George W. Bush.  While absurdly simplistic and not particularly based in any reality that I’m familiar with, it doesn’t have anything to do with the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

It’s telling that a Gonzales apologist wants to talk about anything except the issue at hand.  Navarrette dispenses quickly and easily with the actual substance of the US Attorney issue by laying it all on Karl Rove, then whips up an emotional frenzy over non-issues, because he knows discussing the real complaints would be a losing proposition.  Gonzales is responsible for the Justice Department, and has a long history of doing a poor job in that position.  Perhaps Navarette has a point if his argument is that this incident, if isolated, would not be grounds for Gonzales’ departure.  But that dodges the crux of the problem.  Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General in August of 2005, and in that time, the Justice Department has delivered less and less justice by the day.  That is a failure of the job, and if this incident is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so be it.

The commentary closes with an ominous, if absurdly condescending in every direction, prediction for Democrats in 2008:

Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won’t forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there’s not that much chips and salsa on the planet.

It sounds to me as though the lesson being pitched here is that the color of Gonzales’ skin is more important than the substance of his job performance whether you approve or disapprove of the job performance.  Hispanics will quit the Democratic party en masse, Navarrette imagines, because Democrats aren’t defending the country, they’re attacking skin color.

If Gonzales wants a fair hearing, guess what? He can have one.  In a revelatory change of course since January of this year (coincidence?), Congress will actually conduct legitimate investigations.  All Gonzales has to do is show up and solemnly swear.  Except, of course, that George Bush, the hero of racial equality in this story remember, doesn’t want the truth to come out.  Doesn’t sound particularly helpful to the Gonzales cause to me.  But then again, I see Gonzales as a man, not a color.  Ruben Navarrette Jr. may want to try it sometime.

As reported in the Union Tribune today and explained in an emailed press release from Mayor Jerry Sanders’ office a few minutes ago, the San Diego City Charter is under review.  A Charter Committee has been established by the Mayor, headed by John Davies and Judge James Milliken, to review what Sanders calls “a half-finished job” of switching to a strong mayor form of city government as Sanders continues his work to expand the unilateral powers of the mayor’s office.

“One of the greatest disservices that was done to our citizens last time was the rushed nature of the process,” Sanders said. “I’d like to eliminate that this time and give citizens and interested stakeholders plenty of time to reflect on the issues.”

According to the Sanders release, the committee will focus on “financial reforms; the duties of elected officials; fixes to the strong mayor system during this interim period; and considering making strong mayor permanent,” which dovetails nicely with every squabble he’s had with other officials in the city since taking office.

He’s fought with the City Council over his ability to cut entire civic programs from the budget without council review (a decision on which has been delayed by Mike Aguirre).  He’s driven out the city’s auditor by insisting that the auditor be a mouthpiece for the mayor’s office rather than an independent voice.  In short, he’s really chafed over having to fight for his strong-mayor rights.

So he’s got a committee together to figure out how to expand, extend and then make permanent the role of the Mayor as The Decider of San Diego.  The city council, if Sanders gets his way, will mostly be left as advisors and administrators of whatever the Mayor isn’t interested in dealing with.  That Sanders has promised to support any recommendations from the committee suggests either good faith, or faith in the committee he assembled to deliver the recommendations he wants.

Council President Scott Peters (“It’s…not an only-mayor form of government”) has declined to commit blindly to the recommendations of the committee, but sounds supportive of strengthening the mayor, hoping for “ideas to finish the job” of transitioning to a new form of city governance.  Doesn’t exactly sound like he’s ready for a fight.  Councilwoman Donna Frye has fought well against Sanders over the budget cuts, but since the committee will also consider changing the number of seats on the city council and the number of votes required to override a mayoral veto, she could find her power to slow down the Sanders power grab severely curtailed.

It boils down to Sanders establishing a committee to conclude that he should have more power and people shouldn’t be able to get in his way.  The perceived mandate from voters in support of the “strong mayor” form of government is checking too many members of the city council, clearing the road for Sanders to seize unilateral control of the city government.  Sanders said in his press release that he “will of course ask the Committee to comply with the Brown Act and ask that the public participate in the Committee’s work.”  I strongly recommend that people in San Diego take advantage of the opportunity to participate.  If you thought San Diego was corrupt and mismanaged before, just wait until it’s a mayoral fiefdom.  Head it off while there’s still time.

(I guess this wasn’t “supposed” to be on the front page…
But whatever, we all should read this. – promoted by atdleft)

Last November, Bill McDannell was living in Lakeside, California.  Today, he’s walking somewhere near Dallas.  In between, he’s walked 1,000 miles, largely unnoticed and unappreciated, in opposition to the actions of this government.  Four years after the invasion of Iraq, Bill McDannell is Walking to End the Wars.

At some spots along the way, the local media interview him, but he has yet to get any national exposure. He would like some, because more publicity would draw attention to the folly of the war, he says.

I don’t know if it’s possible for enough attention to be paid to the war and its effects, nor do I fail to understand that after four years, it’s only natural to work within the context of the war; to move beyond the immediacy of the insanity.  Indeed, that’s the only way change is likely to come.  But we can’t hear enough about the people who take up this cause as their life’s work, because without them, we’d all be lost.

McDannell says it best:

My name is Bill McDannell. I am a father of five and grandfather of four. I am a Vietnam era veteran and a former pastor of the United Methodist Church. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, I still firmly believe that, as a citizen of the United States of America, I have a voice in the activities of our country, and that my voice can be heard and can have an impact.

On Saturday, November 4th, 2006 I began to put that belief to the test. Mindful of my constitutional right to petition my government, on that date I left my home in Lakeside, California to begin a walk that will end in Washington, D.C. I am carrying with me a petition I intend to present to both the executive and legislative branches of our government requesting that we, as a nation, declare an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Along the way, he’s collected about 1,500 signatures, and by my rough calculations he’s about halfway to Washington, DC.  To get where he is, he sold most of his possessions including his home and quit his job.  Because he still believes this country is worth saving, and he can have a small part in that salvation.  Yesterday many of us attended vigils to mark the anniversary of the war in Iraq.  On this occasion, let’s also remember some of those who are pushing forward every day to bring an end to this bloodshed.

Like thousands of others across California and the United States tonight, I took part in a vigil protesting the continuation of the Iraq War.  I was fortunate to have a protest just a bit down the road from me, with folks from Normal Heights, Kensington, and the surrounding area setting up shop on the Adams Ave/I-15 Bridge to catch rush hour traffic on the way home.  I managed to arrive late, as I tend to do, but was still able to have a great time discovering that there’s lots of hope, even in San Diego.

I don’t get as involved in local San Diego action nearly as much as I would like, but I’m really hoping that one of these days (months), my schedule will magically start to line up with more opportunities.  But in the meantime, when I get the chance to join in one of these events, it’s even more exciting than it might otherwise be.

I was ultimately out for only about 45 minutes or so, but in that time, the response was amazing.  The nearly continuous honking from rush hour traffic, the waves, the peace signs, the interested pedestrians were really encouraging.  Granted, this neighborhood tends to be more progressive than many other parts of San Diego, but it’s always good to recharge the soul with some public support.

My fellow attendees (vigil-antes?) covered many generations, and conversation ranged from impeachment (Bush, Cheney, Nixon) to Huffington Post to Obama to Kucinich and, yes, Calitics :).  And the support we received from everyone going by was just as wide-ranging demographically.  Colonel Kilgore once said of Vietnam “Someday, this war is gonna end.” Tonight was a great opportunity for some optimism, despite the unfortunately somber occasion.  I hope the mediocrity of my camera-phone pictures in twilight are compensated for in some small part my my words.  This war will end.  It’s not in the papers, it’s on the walls, and these are some of the people who are making it happen:

now BRING EM HOME!

I’m on the mailing list for the Latin American Working Group, which tracks Latin American policy in Washington.  Among other things, they’re currently working on drumming up 100 cosponsors for HR 654, the Rangel-Flake bill to end the ban on travel to Cuba.  The bill would eliminate all restrictions on travel between the United States and Cuba, and LAWG has targeted quite a few Californian members of Congress as potential cosponsors.  Hit the flip for a rundown on why this is important and the list of California targets.

The travel ban, like the economic embargo, was designed and has since been supported on the premise that it prevents U.S. dollars from supporting the Castro regime.  Problem is, it’s been at least a decade since U.S. policy lapsed into “wait for Castro to die.”  Furthermore, this is a policy that does nothing to harm Castro or his government, and everything to harm everyday Cubans who have a failing economy and people from the U.S. who might be able to both learn about Cuban culture (an amazing, rich culture) and influence the politics of Cubans as a whole.  For all the effort that’s been put into giving Reagan’s force of will full credit for ending the Cold War, it was when the Soviet Union couldn’t keep Western culture off the streetcorner that communism collapsed.  As it stands, Cubans are at the mercy of the propaganda fed to them by the government mixed with rumors.  There’s no counterpoint when Castro blames every failing on the United States.

They have a long list of targets from across the country, but here’s the list of Californians that they’ve targeted.  If you support this action and see your Rep on the list, give them a call, fax or email and encourage them to co-sponsor the Rangel-Flake bill.

Davis, Susan D-CA
Eshoo D-CA
Honda D-CA
Lantos D-CA (will probably vote for it but not likely to co-sponsor; he really
needs to hear from constituents who support a change in policy)
Matsui D-CA
Millender-McDonald D-CA
Napolitano D-CA
Pelosi D-CA (not likely to co-sponsor as Speaker, but call her to ask for her
support for bringing the bill to a vote)
Roybal-Allard D-CA
Sanchez, Linda D-CA
Scott, David D-CA
Baca D-CA
Cardoza D-CA
Costa D-CA
Sherman D-CA

They also take special note of new members of Congress who are getting worked pretty hard on this issue.  In California, that means Jerry McNerney and Kevin McCarthy, so don’t hesitate to get after them in particular and hopefully get them started down the right road.

So last week, Chris Reed responded to my earlier piece in reaction to his complaints about the supposedly dishonest exaggeration of the health-care crisis in this country.  Atdleft has already made his voice heard on this, but I think there are a few other points that need to be made.

After his lead in about his high-minded tenacity in seeking out lies in any dark corner, he dives into the crux of his argument:

Oh, come on. Of course the distinction between U.S. citizens and non-citizens/illegal immigrants matters. Whether or not someone with a certain set of political views thinks it should matter, it does — it’s central to many policy debates.

It doesn’t matter when you’re trying to improve the state of public health in the country.  As I said in the first place, germs don’t check citizen status.  This is much less a political issue (as which he tries to dismiss it) than it is a biological, medical issue.  So to start with the pragmatic side, I don’t care if I catch the flu from a Mayflower decendent or a Martian, I’m still sick and I still wish they’d been able to go to the doctor before I caught something from them.  I won’t run through (again) the reasons why people not getting sick is good for the country, but it is.  And if, as Reed says, this issue is central to many policy debates, then he isn’t the only one missing the point.  I realize that extending health coverage to illegal immigrants is a political debate as much as any other, but in terms of understanding just how many people are walking petri dishes, it isn’t an issue.

Next up is the neverending quest for truth:

So should our standard be that some misleading/dishonest/utterly deceptive statistics are OK in policy debates if they serve our cause and we believe we hold the moral high ground?

No way: Every time a fake fact becomes part of the discourse, it hurts the quality of the discourse. The ends don’t justify the means, however noble the intentions of the deceivers or accomplices to the deception.

I certainly won’t suggest that exaggeration or outright lying is ever acceptable in the media, or anywhere really.  But if this is really supposed to be the only point here…well…it isn’t.  As I mentioned last time, “American” is not interchangeable with “American citizen” and as a result, his semantics lesson is poorly conceived.  If the concern is that the majority of people would presume the two to be interchangeable when receiving their news, I hope the suggestion isn’t that the media has a responsibility to dumb down its level of discourse.

The point here isn’t the noble or ignoble goals of those who may exaggerate information to promote a political agenda.  My point is that, at a certain point, a problem becomes so large that it’s just too large.  The health care crisis in this country is such a problem.  The implications of Reed’s complaints is that somewhere between 35 million and 47 million uninsured people in the United States exists a degree of seriousness that would alter the collective motivation to act; that somewhere between 35 and 47 million, the problem becomes big enough to demand attention.  I find this to be both distasteful and insulting, and if that’s something he really believes, well…that’s a pretty contemptuous perspective on Americans, whether citizens or not.

His response closes, as all indignant rants should, by trying to pick a fight and dismissing Calitics (presumably me specifically) as “just media junkies with unhealthy copy editor proclivities.”  I suppose I’ll disappoint him by not “foaming” over his attempted Iraq comparison.  I will, however, say that the discussion over whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not the same as a discussion as to what the term “American” means.  In the former situation, the issue is whether a credible threat exists or does not.  In the latter, the issue is what to name the problem.  So if Chris Reed wants a metaphor, I’m afraid I’ll have to reject his.  I’d compare it more to discussions over how destructive the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were during the Cold War.  Arguing over how many times over the world could be destroyed just isn’t particularly relevant.  If you want to argue the facts, you of course can, but why would you think it was relevant to the discussion of how to prevent the world from ending?

So here’s what it boils down to: Are the statistics which Reed complains about misleading? I don’t think so, but he does.  Either way, does it change the relevant points of the health care debate in the slightest? No.  So we can discuss, I suppose, the best way to name statistics.  But if Chris Reed were to get his victory and all news outlets change the wording of their reports, then what? We still have 47 million people in this country without health coverage and we haven’t spent our time trying to solve that problem, even in the slightest.  Yes, the media needs to be accountable and accurate, and by all means, let’s continue to call them on inaccuracies.  But let’s not for a second think that, the immediacy or gravity of the health care crisis in this country is, in any way, altered by how we subdivide the people who are suffering.

Busy day or two here in Sunny San Diego.  Hit the flip for the itinerary for any active Democrat.

Later today, start off with the 7th Annual Women’s Day Celebration from Red CalacArts.  Enjoy music by Pistolera, poetry by Maria Fugueroa, and more.

Saturday morning, San Diego Young Democrats are taking on graffiti in North Park and there’ll be food and drink afterwards for all comers.

And if you’d rather be active while sitting and listening, check out Edward Tabash discussing the separation of church and state with the Coronado Democratic Club.

Cap off your day with some words on the impact of humans on the environment from Dr. Milton Saier offered by Progressive Democrats of San Diego.

And if you happen to find yourself absent from San Diego, don’t overlook a screening of “Call Me Malcolm” in Costa Mesa, it does the progressive soul good.