On Sunday, The Union-Tribune reported on the simmering issue in San Diego of sex offenders concentrating in the downtown area.  Now that Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) has been overwhelmingly approved by Californians, local officials have been given the greenlight to run sex offenders out of downtown.  But has anyone given any thought to where they’re supposed to go?

To recap, Proposition 83 prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of parks and schools (among other things).  It also happens to be the pet issue of Republican Assemblywoman Shirley Horton who represents many of my neighbors and who just rode it to a very expensive reelection to the State Assembly.  The constitutional applicability of Jessica’s Law is already being considered in U.S. District Court, but in the meantime, that would restrict all but a few blocks of the entire San Diego downtown area.  The reasoning from City Councilman Kevin Faulconer is that “downtown is a neighborhood now” which leads me to wonder what residential non-neighborhoods he’s imagining sex offenders moving into.  The NIMBYism that goes on in debates like this is perfectly understandable of course, but regardless of what ruling eventually comes from the courts, shouldn’t we be focusing on the bigger issues?  Like, for starters, how to prevent sex offenders who are potentially dangerous from being released in the first place?

Southern Californians for Jessica’s Law, right on the front page, presumably as the crux of their argument since they went to all the trouble of bolding it, announces the horrible reality that “many [sex offenders] are living in our communities and neighborhoods, near our schools and parks…”  Well geez, prisoners are being released and trying to integrate themselves back into communities and neighborhoods?  It would be much better if we could keep them all together somewhere, isolated from the rest of us.  Maybe we could call it jail or something.

Obviously, this is a complex issue with a lot of wrinkles that’s too much for any politician to take on with one bite.  It involves reconsidering penalties for non-violent and drug offenders, it involves the rate of prison construction, it involves reviewing and probably reforming the parole evaluation and tracking system.  And probably it involves treading a very careful course that many will see as soft on child predators.  You can’t get everything into a soundbite though, so we get crap laws like this that are wildly popular in San Diego and elsewhere because they glamorously treat symptoms but never dive into the root causes of the problems we face.

Which steers us to the essence of the issue.  In San Diego, in California, in DC, we’ve spent the past several (or more than several) years suffering through reactive legislation dressed up as proactive and visionary.  Sex offenders are being let out of prison while still potentially a threat?  Don’t keep them in jail or innovate treatment procedures, just don’t let them live anywhere except prison.  Corporations are outsourcing jobs overseas?  Don’t make American workers more desirable via advanced training and education, create tax penalties.  There are people who so hate the way in which the United States has conducted itself internationally that they’ll kill themselves and murder innocent people?  Don’t consider treating people who hold different beliefs with respect or consider dialing back the hegemonic drum-beating, just do your best to kill them.  While the stated goals of these policies will always be presented as exceedingly admirable, problems just don’t get solved.  At the local, state and federal level, we’ve spent years watching the whack-a-mole school of policy in action.

The application of Proposition 83 is in the hands of the courts now, and we’ll see what happens in the next couple of months.  In the meantime, is there such a thing as comprehensive politics anymore?  Are there politicians willing to take a swing at legitimate, large-scale reform?  And if they’re out there, is it even possible to accomplish something like this in the age of soundbites?

If there’s hope for comprehensive reform, it won’t come from the top down.  While it’s a bit much to expect actual legislation to be written and pushed from the grassroots, it’s increasingly clear that a comprehensive platform that reflects the rank and file of the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level would be best driven by the grassroots, in particular a progressive version thereof.

So when you get a DFA invitation to participate in party elections, or when people talk about Taking Back The CA Democratic Party, it’s exactly this issue.  It’s giving the grassroots an opportunity to ensure that the party’s platform and the laws pursued and enacted make more sense from a functional level.  Ultimately, that our party and our government is working on sustainable progress with the minimum of wasted effort.

So if your district needs a good progressive to run, do it.  If your district already has one, vote for them.  It doesn’t save the world, but it’s a start.

(nice Christmas tale for you. Apparently due to pressure, they’re going to open the shelter after all, but the initial reaction by the council says it all. – promoted by dday)

My lovely hometown council told the homeless of our community to freeze to death. In their last meeting of the year before heading to their warm homes in our suburban town, they denied a request by the Interfaith Community Services to use their own building to house a few homeless during our unprecedented cold snap we’re having (temps have pretty regularly dipped below 30F, which is very cold for a So Cal town):

Four of the five council members said during their last meeting of the year that they couldn’t support a request by officials of the Salvation Army and Interfaith Community Services to open a temporary winter shelter in the gymnasium of the Salvation Army at Las Villas Way near Centre City and El Norte parkways.

The council didn’t vote on the matter because no motion was made. Only Mayor Lori Holt-Pfeiler, who put the item on the meeting agenda, said she supported opening the shelter. No city money was requested for the shelter, only the council’s approval of the building’s additional use.
From the NC Times. Read the comments, they’re amazingly gross at times.

I very nearly puked reading this.

Breaking

From ICS’ spokesperson:

“We are deeply saddened and disappointed with the City Council’s decision,” said Interfaith spokeswoman Christine Vaughan. “To deny your city (residents) warmth, it should be a crime.”

Sam Abed, Ed Gallo, Marie Waldron, and Daniels are all the main drivers of the failed waste-of-taxpayer’s-money that was the recent illegal immigrant rental ban in Escondido. Here’s another bit of the article:

Abed cited two reports that city officials had crafted at his request to demonstrate how dedicated the city has been in helping the homeless.

So, instead of approving a no-cost SOLUTION to help the homeless in FREEZING WEATHER, these…sub-humans commission reports saying how great they are?

It’s enough to make you vomit. I’ve been in a state of agitation all day long over this. This is MY City Council! These sick freaks are making MY TOWN look like… words fail me. Here’s their contact info. The only one who supported helping the defenseless and homeless is Lori holt-Pfeiler, the Mayor.

Here’s the Interfaith Community Services page, if you’d like to offer support or encouragement. I’m not a religious person but these people are tireless, selfless, and giving individuals. They’re the kind of folks that make me NOT move out of Escondido.

Here’s Arnold’s page.

Here’s Bilbray.

(The movie was good, I also recommend Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch — get ready for the trolls. – promoted by blogswarm)

On November 28th, the San Diego City Council voted in favor of banning Wal-Mart Superstores (spotted by Todd Beeton at Calitics as well) citing low-wage jobs, traffic congestion and the demise of mom-and-pop stores as reason to keep the biggest of the Big Boxes outside of San Diego.  This was, perhaps sadly, one of the bigger political stories of my several years in San Diego, with friends and foes of discount superstores crowding into the public hearing to plead their cases.  That Walmart would come out on the wrong end of this in San Diego of all places is pretty impressive, as we find our progressive moments to be few and far between.  But as is generally the case when some combination of evil corporations, politics and California combine, it looks as though we’re heading for an expensive legal campaign and an even more expensive disinformation campaign as Walmart fights back.  This is a battle that we’re going to have to fight and win eventually if a progressive agenda is going to have a prayer in this country, and since the fight in Chicago has come and gone, perhaps we can seize on this one to create and hone strategy.

First, to set the stage.  The Council’s vote was 5-3 in favor, sending it to Mayor Jerry Sanders who has no interest in slowing down development or corporations.  Sanders has made clear that he’ll veto the measure in January, but if the 5 votes hold, the veto would be overriden.  This ban is very carefully designed to only ban the largest of Walmart stores, leaving untouched the “normal” sized stores and similar big-boxers such as Target, Lowes, Costco, etc.  Walmart has a long history of taking fights with local governments to the courts and the ballot boxes, and while they’re not saying anything one way or another, we can expect them to not go quietly here.

It’s clear from many of the opinions expressed at the City Council meeting and from random conversations I’ve had around town that the economic ramifications of a Walmart economy.  People are very much convinced that these low prices sustain them, and the problem of course is that in most tangible ways, that’s true.  There’s no doubt in my mind that this will be the crux of Walmart’s inevitable media blitz once the City Council reaffirms their vote.  It’s tough to combat an argument of “they want to raise prices,” especially since it sounds so much like “they want to raise your taxes.”

In an article last week running down the future possibilities, it turns out

One well-known Republican political consultant, who requested anonymity, has already tried to contact the company about working on a referendum, but said the company has not responded to his request. Others in the political community expect the company to wait for the council vote on overriding the mayoral veto — which would take just the same five votes that were needed to pass the ban — before announcing its plans.

The article goes on to suggest that local labor organizations are likely to be major players in any potential referendum action, speculating that “you would see them organize like never before.”  If it comes to this, it’s a great opportunity to roll out the growing netroots/labor ties and start building more and stronger bridges between online activism and grassroots activism.  Most importantly though, it presents an opportunity for the netroots to expand its collective purview beyond straight electoral politics.  As we continue finding our way through the inevitable post-election “what do we do with ourselves” period, I would suggest that the best way to become relevant even when there isn’t an election is to take on more of the day-to-day stuff that keeps the grassroots in business.  Not only do we build progressive infrastructure and step up the hearts-and-minds battle, but the netroots becomes an indispensable ally of the existing grassroots process.

As far as I’ve always understood it, Walmart undercuts everything about a strong and functional local economy.  When it first comes to town, people love the bargains, but as the independent stores with higher wages start getting undercut and going out of business, gradually Walmart’s prices aren’t bargains anymore.  Suddenly, Walmart is all that people can afford.  Obviously this is why a ballot proposition is the most frightening option- this economic cycle is already well established in San Diego and people rely on these prices to get by.  But an education campaign can change that.  Going forward, I mostly hope that this issue, at least broadly if not specifically in San Diego, gains more attention.  The netroots is best as the place where talking points are proposed, refined and distributed, so the more we talk about this, the better equipped people on the ground will be when we all start lobbying our friends and neighbors on this issue.  For all the expanding capabilities of the netroots, serving as a bullhorn is still what we’re best at, so let’s begin to shout.  People deserve better than a Walmart society, and San Diego is the coming battle.

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

Late yesterday, the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 to ban certain kinds of big box stores that just happen to match the description of WalMart Supercenters.

The measure…prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.

Republican mayor Jerry Sanders will get his chance to veto the measure once the council reaffirms the vote in January. And according to a spokesman, he will indeed wield that veto pen. But the council can override with 5 votes, exactly the number the original vote garnered.

It is expected that Wal Mart will appeal in the courts or via a voter referendum if the measure does become law. Unless they're too busy licking their wounds from a recent legal smackdown that is. The San Diego ban is modeled on a similar ordinance in northern Turlock, CA. There, "big-box stores over 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5 percent of their space to groceries" are banned. Wal Mart recently dropped their challenge to it after a federal judge called the ban constitutional and the state supreme court refused to hear the company's appeal.

Ah, sweet sweet schadenfreude.

(Lets stop this train wreck before it happens, Yes on Shelton, No on Kincaid! – promoted by CarlsbadDem)

Rod Shelton is in a runoff for Superior Court Judge against Larry Kincaid. This shouldn’t be even a contest, but it will be.

Shelton was rated “well qualified” by the San Diego Bar Assoc. Kincaid wasn’t given a rating because he failed to show up for his interview (probably a calculated decision – “not rated” looks better than “unqualified”). Even the conservative Union-Tribune “strongly” endorsed Shelton. All the law enforcement agency and leaders, and dozens of other judges in the area, have endorsed Shelton.

So why does Kincaid even stand a chance? Well, look at his endorsements: California Republican Assembly, Southern Californians for Life, California ProLife Council, Christian Examiner … are you getting scared yet? He has basically zero reputable or impartial endorsements. Here is the U-T’s take on it:

But Kincaid has written about bringing “conservative Christian values” to the bench. He also accused Shelton of being associated with “radical organizations.” Kincaid labeled the NAACP, of which Shelton is a member, a “radical socialist, pro gay-marriage organization.”

While everyone is entitled to his or her views, a judge must appear impartial. Kincaid appears anything but impartial. That is why we strongly support Rod Shelton for San Diego County Superior Court judge.

Unfortunately I’m lazy and I usually never keep track of these really obscure down-ballot things. And unfortunately, most voters probably pay even less attention than I do. Please, please, let all your friends, relatives and neighbors know about this important race. Rod Shelton for Judge.

In the rematch of Brian Bilbray and Francine Busby, Francine has clawed her way back into the race.  Survey USA released their poll today:

49% (54) Bilbray (R)
46%(40)  Busby (D)
2%  King (L)
3%  Clark (PFP)
1%  Undecided

Bilbray lost 5 points since the last poll, and Busby gained 6.  Additionally, there is some movement on the grand jury investigation.  This might also gain some traction in the next 3 weeks.  No media has officially confirmed the investigation, but the papers have started reporting on the rumors that have been flying. Here’s the San Diego U-T’s version. It primarily lambasts Busby’s campaign for promoting the rumors.  The campaign states that some neighbors have contacted them about testifying in a grand jury. If this comes out in a more official form, it could be the nail in Biblray’s coffin.

And oh, by the way, Bilbray still hasn’t shown himself.  Will he show up to talk to the Chambers of Commerce? Words Have Power says that’s scheduled to appear. The intrigue continues…

(A good chance to see how Francine’s been doing now. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Hard working local blogger Words Have Power breaks the story that a Chris Matthews showdown is in the works for Francine Busby and incumbent GOP Congressman Brian Bilbray.

While the BREAKING header on this piece is an attempt at humor…I do have one serious piece of tactics to pass on to Francine for this TV showdown…

Busby should work on this material from a Spring debate she had with Bilbray:

On the issue of immigration, Bilbray emphasized that he has spent decades working to stem illegal immigration. He said he could not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Ask yourself, is it important enough to make sure your grandchildren learn Spanish because they want to, or because they have to? That’s the question,” he said.

Bilbray’s immigration policy makes no sense. He plays on fear of immigrants and offers nothing sensible in its place. Which is a lot like Donald Rumsfeld’s work in Iraq: all fear, no plan.  Francine Busby should call out Bilbray on the above quote and attitude; it represents everything that’s wrong about the GOP approach to problem solving.

Busby’s point of view: pragmatic immigration reform makes a great deal of sense…and it has appeal to independent voters and many Republicans according netroots polling.

Busby got every last Democratic vote she was going to get in CA-50.  To beat Bilbray, she has to bring Independents and some GOP voters to her side. I think she should address that head on and specifically ask those voters to compare her immigration reform proposals to Bilbray’s fearmongering.

Hell, I’d try something like this:

“I’m a proud Democrat, but I know that California 50 is a fiercely independent district with a strong Republican base. That’s why I’m inviting Republicans and Independents to look at the substance of my policy proposals and compare them side by side with Brian Bilbray’s. If you elect me, I will accept that scrutiny day in and day out. I’ll have to in this district, I’m a Democrat. I’ll put my immigration platform against Brian Bilbray’s any day of the week. Take a look. As a Democrat, I can’t just stand on a podium and sell you fear and vague ideas. I have to put up some substance, and I know it. Issue by issue, my positions reflect what the voters of CA-50 really think. I welcome a debate on immigration.”

The Vanity Fair article on the Duke-Stir Affair that will appear in the next issue is an interesting summary of all that has happened in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Cunningham/Lewis Affair.  It is becoming painfully clear that we have not heard the last of this particular scandal.  Besides Lewis, expect a lot more scrutiny on Katherine Harris (“Representative B”).  Also, Bill Lowery, the Congressman that imediately preceded Duke, will also be using a lot of legal services in the future.  Of course, this is nothing new for Lowery, who lost his seat do to his role in the House Banking Scandal; Lowery and his wife cashed over 200 hot checks.  Dusty Foggo, Porter Goss’ No. 3 man at the CIA, will also be sharing the mess hall with the Duke Stir.

On trips to Washington, Casey recalls, Wilkes was able to usher him into the presence of important members of the armed-services and appropriations committees, including, most notably, Lowery and Lowery’s closest friend on the latter, fellow California Republican Jerry Lewis, now 71. The genteel Lewis and the earthy Lowery reportedly loved to dine and even vacation together. “Everyone on the defense committee always works cooperatively,” says Casey, who realized pretty quickly that no money came his way without their support. “It was team play, and they emphasized that to me constantly.”

Wilkes also introduced Casey to Dusty Foggo, who often passed through Washington. Around 1994, during a visit to a Washington strip club, Casey says, Foggo wore a gun in a shoulder holster and flashed his identification at the club doorman. He was promptly seated by the stage. “Foggo sits there the whole night telling me how he likes to fuck girls in the ass,” Casey recalls. “He sees a girl there, he jabs you and says, ‘She’s ready to go—let’s double-team her.’ The weirdest combination of sex and domination! And Wilkes, he’s just laughing the whole time.” (Vanity Fair 7/5/06)

Haha! Yes, it’s hilarious using your CIA badge to get laid at strip clubs.  I particularly think the whole double-team comment is a priceless one, and worthy of the Washington Hall of Corruption Fame.  But that’s just me.  The more telling part is that Lewis worked very closely with Duke.  Either he was naive or he was complicit.  The latter now seems far more likely:

“Tom, let’s cut to the chase. I want you to get stock options for Bill Lowery” was how Lewis opened their conversation, Casey recalls. Specifically, Casey adds, Lewis suggested that a very large number of Audre stock options issued in Canada be given to Lowery, but put under other names. Lewis’s actual words were “I am going to give you a list of names,” says Casey, who declined to go along. That was the last time he and Lewis had a pleasant conversation, Casey says. (Through a spokesman, Lewis acknowledges that he “thinks he remembers meeting Tom Casey,” but denies the story. “What’s described sounds illegal to me,” says the spokesperson. Through his lawyer, Lowery also denies any knowledge of the proposed deal.)

Unparalleled really doesn’t do this scandal justice.  It dwarfs the Abramoff scandal.  It dwarfs Rostenkowski, or Traficant.  This will end several careers, and see the exposure of Conservatism for what it really is: Great in theory, terrible in power.

Simply put, Conservatives cannot govern.  Their loathing of government works great in opposition, but not so well in power.  When they actually gain power, we see that they have no respect for the institutions and for those that elected them.

Back in Congress, Brian Bilbray is trying to make a name for himself…or one of his old lobbyist clients:

Bilbray said the recent debates on illegal immigration show that not enough has been done to find and remove illegal immigrants.

“The United States has not been serious enough about our national sovereignty, defending our neighborhoods,” Bilbray said. “The problem is coming across the border and not being regulated under a mandate by our federal Constitution.” (San Diego U-T) 7/5/06)

There isn’t much of substance to this whole road show.  It’s just a big campaign for HR4437, Sensenbrenner’s nativist bill.  The Senate Bill was livable, but 4437 is not.  More border patrol doesn’t really solve the problem, which is a poor Mexican economy devestated by government corruption. (Also on that note, there has been no determination of Mexico’s new president, with AMLO trailing by less than one percent.)

A real solution to the immigration question is necessary and the theater isn’t helpful.  If the GOP can get past their grandstanding and nativism, perhas we can find real answers.

Duncan Hunter hails from inland San Diego County, somewhere abouts Alpine.  Pretty desert-type area.  It’s a fairly conservative place, but you can’t hold that against him.  You can hold his terrible website against him.  It’s got to be one of the worst in all of the Congress.  Something else you can hold against him: he’s one of the top recipients of lobbying dollars.  In fact he’s take more money than all but 65 Congressmen in the last year.  That puts him at about top 15%.  Good Work Duncan ol’boy!

But more specifically, he’s #2 on Van D. Hipp Jr.’s list.  Now, who is Van D. Hipp, Jr you might ask?  Well good question!

The report from Public Citizen indicates the Alpine Republican is Congress’ No. 2 recipient of contributions from Van D. Hipp Jr., chairman of American Defense International, a lobbying group whose clients have included Raytheon Missile Systems, Ruag Munition, Sarnoff Corp. and other defense-related companies. Hipp is profiled in the Public Citizen report because he is among the Hill’s top donors to lawmakers.

Hunter is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the nation’s vast and expensive defense programs.

Hipp has been with American Defense International since 1998. The company’s Web site indicates that the company represents more than 100 organizations in 11 countries on “government affairs” strategies, crafting messages to “decision makers” and “marketing a product or service to the federal government” – in other words, your standard lobbying activities.

In the scheme of things, that’s not a big chunk of change, but in the current lobby-reform climate, a Hunter-Hipp association is something watchdog groups are bound to pounce on.  … That is especially true since Hipp does not have a clean record. … About a decade ago, this former deputy assistant secretary of the Army was sentenced to five years’ probation and three months’ house arrest for taking illegal campaign gifts during a failed 1994 congressional campaign. He also was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service.
That’s a bit more serious than your average Federal Election Commission slap on the wrist. No doubt those critical of Hunter’s close ties to imprisoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham would be happy to point out that Hunter has ties to others who have run afoul of the law. (SD U-T 6/5/06)

Now, the article also goes on to say that all this money is no cause for concern.  Everybody does it and “‘lobbyist’ is not – last we checked – an inherently dirty word.”  Well, tell that to the people of the 50th who suffered the indignation and violation of trust of their former representative.  Lobbyist isn’t necessarily a bad word, sure…as long as there isn’t any money involved.  Until we have a process of clean elections, I’ll be sure to watch the lobbyists and where they are spreading all that cash.  We’d be naïve if we didn’t.  I’m sure a part of the reason why the focus is narrowing on the GOP is that thay control power.  I’m certainly not saying that Dems are immune to corruption.  That’s certainly not true (Exhibit A: Rostenkowski), but it is true that the GOP has not been hiding from all that loose money.  Congressmen need to know that there are consequences of every action.  Make sure you know who your john is before you whore our nation out.