August 26, 2015
I'll have much more to say in the near future on my wholehearted some could say rabid support for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016! As I have already stated, I will never again vote for anyone but Hillary for President. I may review my political history again and make one more attempt at my computer fix before I join her campaign on her web site and will try to pivot to positive reasons for my support than the way too easy criticism of the candidate who disturbs and disgusts me the most in the Democratic primary. NO ONE is more fluent, more prolific, more articulate, or more specific on a wide range of policy than Hillary. There is no one magic answer or solution. What is most needed is someone with the intelligence and strength and determination to work with others when possible and fight like hell when necessary to make productive progressive change occur across a wide spectrum of issues of concern in the US today. Simply railing againt evil wall street is simplistic and rather childish and ineffective.
Hillary Clinton Speaks About Farming, and Much More, in Iowa
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — It was a speech intended to introduce her plan to help rural America in one of the most agricultural parts of Iowa. But the framing that Hillary Rodham Clinton took to lay out her plan here drew the agricultural world into the broader messages of her campaign, touching on everything from immigration to drug addiction.
“We have more than 40
million Americans living in small towns in rural America,” Mrs. Clinton
told the crowd of more than 275, packed into a tiny meeting room at
Morningside College on Wednesday afternoon. “You don’t ignore that, you
figure out what we’re going to do to grow together,” she said.
Growing together was a
central theme: She said that creating more clean energy would be a boon
to agriculture, that expanded broadband and Internet access would help
rural communities, that comprehensive immigration reform would help
stabilize the agricultural work force, and that a growing agriculture
sector would help combat the drug dependency and addiction plaguing the
country.
In proclaiming her
agricultural bona fides, she recalled her battles as a senator from New
York to connect New York City’s lower-income and often hungry population
with upstate farmers. The first step, she said, was simply convincing
those around her in Washington that New York had farmers at all.
“A lot of my
colleagues in the Senate didn’t believe me,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting
that she had to show them “we were number two in onions, two or three in
dairy.” As part of her efforts, she jokingly displayed a picture of a
cow from New York State. A Midwestern colleague, “who shall remain
nameless,” she said, retorted, “So you’ve got one cow.”
At the Iowa speech on
Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton reiterated plans to expand the use of solar
panels by half a billion by the end of her first presidential term and
to expand biofuel use and research. She became the most passionate,
however, when speaking about a cause she brings up regularly on the
campaign trail: drug addiction.
“I want to focus on
the people of rural America,” she said, her voice becoming hushed as she
listed the devastation that drugs have caused in parts of the country.
“Meth, pills, overdoses, lost lives, broken families.”
She pledged to improve
treatment of addiction, and especially in making such facilities
available in rural areas for addiction and mental health.
“Health is health,” Mrs. Clinton said.
And finally, before
making a pledge about her candidacy and willingness to work across the
aisle, Mrs. Clinton took a quick jab at some of her Republican rivals,
through the frame of immigration and its importance to the agricultural
community.
“A lot of the people
who are talking so dramatically about the immigration system should
spend some time with some farmers who are looking for people to do the
hard work to harvest their crops or milk their cows or pick their
oranges,” she said, before calling for comprehensive immigration reform
to level the field of agricultural workers.
And then she, as many
seem to do at this stage of the campaign, addressed the elephant in
every room, Donald J. Trump, although not by name.
“The idea that
somebody running for president would actually advocate repealing the
14th Amendment, honest to goodness, it’s unbelievable,” she said.
November 9, 2014 - After the tornado moves on
WTF just happened last Tuesday? Couldn't have been and perhaps never have been more devastated following a near annihilation, was planning 2 posts to address it and move on. The first, emotional and poetic, once again addressing the question of giving up on electoral politics as an effective mechanism to achieve social justice, was as disastrous as the election results as the outrage I felt came pouring out of the brain to the paper in such a frenzy an unintentional twitch of a finger barely touched an unknown destructive keyboard function and all the words disappeared. During the entire career the one thing that would spin me into an uncontrollable rage and fury was the sudden loss of a document while typing it knowing nothing could be done. You can get drunk to change your mood or you can sit there and try to re-create it while its still fresh knowing it won't be as articulate the 2nd time. This time a tried a new approach which I think is still on the Poetry page for a a reason that may be clear if I decide to try again (yes that's a hint that I would post on that page than this one) as the concept and substance have burrowed deeper into the mind's recessess and may or may not be found again. The new approach being that I typed out my frustration in some kind of stream of consciousness release and when I realized that the fury was slowly calming I continued to type and decided not to sit there and re-create it then because the block that developed and my anger at losing the material would mean it would take me all day to finish it,. Better to walk away from the computer, do something else, and try again another day.
It feels eerie to recall that because just like then, I didn't plan to sit down and write this now; I was going to do this later, always later. I haven't finished making coffee, need to do some brief chores, decide what music to play, divide my favorites playlist on you tube into one with only music and one other, but before all that I must quickly glance for just a moment at what's in the NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle, and Politics - my basic daily starters - to see what there is to read later when the coffee is made. I get stopped at Willie Brown's column and flushed with all the points I wanted to make on the 2nd and final post election piece, the political analysis.
I was wondering what Willie would say in his post election column and today I found out. Last week, the similarity of his predictions of Democratic victory to mine helped to erase that lingering self-doubt I have before an election when trying to discern wishing and hoping from reality. See I am not once again a delusional foolish optimist who confuses what I want from what is real and actually possible. Willie's been around, he knows politics better than me, I 'm not wrong again.
As usual, he makes some perceptive points which I'll riff and embellish on and then add my other reasons for this nightmare as validated by other sources. No, actually, I am going back to the kitchen to pick up where I left off, now that I started and know what I am going to say, it will be easy to return to and complete, although that means I may not be able to publish it till Sunday night.
November 3, 2014
i just realized the impediment on the blog v. FB post dilemma; i can link to FB with just one click; been wanting to link willie's columns for awhile they are incisive and witty, he knows everybody and everything; this might seem sacrligeous to some but he's gotten closer to the Herb Caen style than anyone since, and like me, he's almost always right. i've had a column enlightened by the perspective of looking back over the last 30 years of sf politics and the demographics that prevented each from becoming the best Gov and Pres in history, floating in my brain for years i need to get to soon on my views on the DiFi/Willie wing of SF pols to slay the narrow-minded cynical rigidly ideological wing of SF progressives and now my comments on his:
BETTY YEE FOR CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER
Now there's a job title to make every control freak drool with envy. Wouldn't want the duties required of the position having no experience or aptitude for finance or money but it seems nothing is too petty or big for me to desire control of - my dogs, my house, the city, the county, the state, Congress, I'd love to control anything. And I'm good at control knowing just what to do in every situation.
Seriously, I don't know how you all got through this intense mind boggling vile abhorrent unscrupulous distorted yet most important election to date in history without my savvy and/or snarky commentary any more than I understand why the font in this post is so much bigger than the font in the post below. Just as I become obsessed with color coordination, so too I want every document blog and post to be consistent in style and appearance but no matter how many times I seek to apply consistent settings each post appears different. I think it has something to do with my moon in Virgo.
Well I fixed that, now you need your magnifying glass. I've returned just in time to snap you out of your cynical delirious but well deserved trance seeking to avoid all that dishonesty subterfuge distortion sabotage and subterfuge brought on by the rich, the powerful, the neanderthals, the know-nothings, the fascists, the right wing nonsensical kooks and nuts seeking to convince or prevent you from voting for the righteous through hook or crook using every tool available from overwhelming distorted advertising to wear you down convince you not to vote to enacting every unconstitutional law or regulation they can get away with to prevent you from voting. BUT VOTE YOU MUST -YOUR LIBERTY RIGHTS AND FINANCIAL SOLVENCY DEPEND ON IT. And I am just as happy to tell you who to vote for as I was all those years ago distributing brochures with my father for the neanderthal of that year. I should mention that my father mellowed over the years, became disgusted with the right wing extremists, turned into a Clinton supporter, equal rights advocate and voted for Dems the last 20 years of his life.
What a season it's been and despite my viral absence I've been here daily, often to my dogs' chagrin glued to the compute daily reading the NY Times, W Post, skimming the LA Times, Chronicle (can do that one in seconds) Politico, etc. ad nauseum until I stumble bleary eyed to go outside and attach the yard. I spent so much time reading I didn't want to spend another second stuck in this poorly ventilated home office in the corner of the house farthest removed from access to nature. Hence my obsession with getting a laptop.
And there was so much to write about. Mary Rose Wilcox' tragic loss in the Dem primary for an open Congressional seat in Phoenix to a much younger less progressive obnoxious egocentric misogynist ageist male gun advocate after her stellar decades long public service career as the only Dem and Hispanic and sane member of the Maricopa County Board of Supes for many years, fighting the fascist sheriff who responded by surrounding her family owned restaurant with posses to intimidate her customers and ruin her business, investigated i think indicted?? by the fascist county attorney who was later disbarred for his efforts, shot in the leg yes with a gun by some nut who showed up at a Board meeting with a gun after hearing the sheriff rant against her and walked up and shot her! Her years long effort to honor her brother by supporting all efforts to raise funds to fight AIDS and advocate for those with HIV.
And now here comes our own LA County Supe Gloria Molina, finally termed out of the Board, so demographically similar to Rose and likewise coming from the grassroots community activism, there's a story here someone should write on how one stayed true to her community and progressive issues and one degenerated into an arrogant egotistical power hungry greedy control freak. She's moved into MY LA city council district to oppose my now corrupt unethical and unfaithful and now politically sleazy and corrupt Councilman Jose Huizar who conspired with Council allies to gerrymander council redistricting, adding downtown to his district so he could get all that money from business, removing it from the south central district where it belonged and was needed so his ally the council president could stretch his district to maintain more than enough Black voters to delude himself into guaranteeing his reelection thus for the 3rd decade and at the height of their decade longs community empowerment efforts carved up Koreatown into 5 council districts rather than making that diverse growing vibrant community that is also home to many non profits and museums the center of a district with a representative of its own and the empowerment that comes with a Councilman to answer to I believe based on race in violatino of the Voting Rights Act seeking his 3rd and final term on the council next spring when I will not vote for him for the first time? But Gloria? Will she return to the community oriented Gloria of her youth who we used to like? Or does she simply want to deservedly bash around the inept Jose and then run for Mayor two years later, a job she has always coveted? She would not be the first Hispanic mayor but she would be the first woman. But would she really challenge Garcetti only one year into his term as Mayor but already looking like the job is his as long as he wants until a Gov or Sen seat opens up?
I say if you can't bring forth an ethical community oriented candidate with true progressive values to be my council person, then bring on the sleaze, I'll keep the popcorn going, I'm ready to be entertained.
I've said forever that something needs to be done about these overly large unrepresentative unwieldy LA County and City districts that discourage progressive community oriented challengers from running and was shocked the state legislature passed some kind of law allowing for the number of districts to be increased if necessary to ensure the opportunity for all ethnic groups to be represented. 5 county districts and 15 council districts are woefully inadequate for LA and only ensure control by the moneyed interests. Expanding either body would result increased numbers of Hispanics and the addition of Asians for the first time (other than Michael Woo's service as Silverlake councilman until he lost as Mayor many years ago) that would be deservedly more proportional to the actual population.
I've said forever that something needs to be done about these overly large unrepresentative unwieldy LA County and City districts that discourage progressive community oriented challengers from running and was shocked the state legislature passed some kind of law allowing for the number of districts to be increased if necessary to ensure the opportunity for all ethnic groups to be represented. 5 county districts and 15 council districts are woefully inadequate for LA and only ensure control by the moneyed interests. Expanding either body would result increased numbers of Hispanics and the addition of Asians for the first time (other than Michael Woo's service as Silverlake councilman until he lost as Mayor many years ago) that would be deservedly more proportional to the actual population.
Well I have already failed at my efforts at balance by writing only 3 articles a week but I haven't even gotten to Bimbo Bobby Shriver who's now become Lying Sleazy Bimbo Bobby as he falls behind and starts trashing the brilliant dedicated accomplished public servant Sheila Kuehl for an open seat on the Board. Sheila used the money she earned from portraying Zelda, the only female on TV allowed to be smarter than a boy, on the Dobie Gillis show, to put herself through UCLA Law School and become a legal advocate for women's rights. While in the state Assembly and Senate she got more child care and family friendly and supportive legislation passed than i can recount here.
But the most thrilling victory so far was Betty Yee's defeat of sleazy unethical gay LA pol in the primary for Controller. She's been supporting gay rights and community empowerment for years. She's up against one of 2 Republicans who I will say are actually trying not to be anti gay and anti female in order to be elected, something the rest of the Republicans across the country have failed to learn and I believe will lost many seats next week.
And who would have thought that Kansas could save the Senate. Even I failed to see the silver lining in the Repubs disastrous sweep in 2010. But after the tea party nuts took over the state, education is slashed the state is sinking into debt the economy is being ruined and half the states Republicans have left to become independents or Democrats. And their redistricting has left their districts so extreme they dare not let the govt function or abandon the nuts who elected them, further alienating the center and resulting in their demise by 2016.
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-gop-maverick-candidate-20141031-column.html
Fair enough, but back in 2008, when she first ran for mayor, the local chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus, which supports pro-abortion-rights female candidates, invited her to apply for an endorsement. Swearengin declined. "She's pro-life," said Billie MacDougall, who was president of the group. "Now she's trying to be more neutral because she's running for state office." If she's aiming beyond the controller's office, though, neutrality will not be an option. "I remember when she was first running for mayor, and a lot of people were concerned about where she stood on social issues and whether she would inject religiosity into the mayor's office. And in the end, that didn't happen," said Tom Holyoke, an associate political science professor at Cal State Fresno. "California is not going to be attracted to a candidate who pushes a lot of conservative social issues," he said. "She's savvy enough to understand that."
MORE LA MAYORAL CAMPAIGN
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/04/wendy_greuel_power_struggle.phpArticle linked above shows everything wrong with Greuel campaign and confirms why I find her ethics, strategy, competence, lack of vision, character, and dishonesty to be so troubling that I believe her to be unworthy of public office ever again. And if she loses this one, as I believe she will and deserves to, I believe that will be the end of the career centered wholly on self, power, and advancement than on any notion of public service. And remember, even she admits she was a Republican until 1992. Pray tell who did she support for Governor in 1990: Pete Wilson or Dianne Feinstein?
The worst I hear about Garcetti is that he keeeps his finger to the wind to determine public mood rather taking a leadership postion based on knowledge, perception and vision, and too often changes his mind or is not committed. These were my quibbles exactly at first, but they become minor annoyances compared to Greuel's unethical and amoral character and peformance. There are worst things than a politician driven to ensure his actions are consistent with public sentiment; after all, don't we wish our elected officials to be sensitive to our preferences?
Greuel could care less about us the public, or anything or anyone else other than her own advancement. Lacking any vision, plans, policy committments, or identification of any matter she wished to address if elected, she left her strategy to consultants, in particular, one with a losing record who shares her delight in attacking below the belt rather than offering a plan to follow once in office.
Her first message was rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse and already my sharp attennae are up and detecting BS. First of all, that is part of her official duties as controller - it is to be expected rather than deemed some kind of miracle or due to some superhuman effort. Next, is there a more shallow issue out there, appealing to the lowest common denominator - lower crime, fix potholes, clean up graffitti, root out waste fraud and abuse. These issues appeal to Republicans and the angry undeducated mob out there which has no idea about actual government performance.
Worst, it was all made up! When the LA Times challenged the figure in a well-researched analytical article, it found smoke and mirrors, double-counted savings, and routine adjustments. She could not back up and document the amount of savings her campaign claimed! Shocking! Where did these figures come from and how was the calculations made? She was the Controller and the candidate and she had no idea. Well that was enough for me but let's be charitable and call it Strike One!
Reading in this article of her history of hitting below the belt comes as no surprise and is consistent with what I found particularly reprehensible - her personal attacks on Jan Perry rather than addressing any disagreements she had. Early in the campaign she engaged in more than loud whispering that she 'heard' Jan Perry would drop out, complete fiction, she knew it, she made it up. For what? Jan Perry has represented her City Council district ranging from the heart of the Black community in South LA to downtown to skid row with dignity and finesse for many years facilitataing sorely needed economic development in underdeveloped areas and housing with social services for at risk homeless, women, youth, families, substance abusers. As a discal hawk disdainful of greedy self absorbed city govt employee unions financing Greuel's campaign, Wendy could have engaged her on substantive fiscal issues on which they disagreed. Instead she tried to undercut the only other woman in the race through demeaning attacks.
Then in the last days of the campaign, as Jan continued to flounder in no better than 3rd place in the polls in which the first 2 make it to a runoff, she publicized and attacked Jan for her ex-husband's bankruptcy filing 10 years ago when his law firm failed. Obviously no feminist, instead of addressing the candidate's issues, she goes after her ex-husband. Again, enough for me, but let's call it srike 2.
Finally, her unholy alliance with a corrupt union financing her campaign and her contradictory stands on issues. She says Garcetti panders to labor too, but that's not the problem Obviously, Greuel groveled lower and agreed to everything this union asked, a union that has better benefits than another city employee union, including police and fire, and pays nothing for health insurance. We'll never know, at least until it's too late, what she promised in secret to get millions of dollars in campaign contributions to finance her campaign. As well she wants to hire more police while the city has a deficit. More pandering. Eliminate the business tax. Pandering again. And it doesn't add up.
Her idea of being fair to business and labor is to give them every benefit and tax break the city can't afford with no consideration for the public interest, which should be her first concern, not her last.
And she wants to be the first woman mayor of LA? Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she's not an empty suit. And haven't we had enough empty suits in office?
That's more than 3 strikes; as far as I am concerned, she's out!
Brock S. Evans
April 9, 2013
___________________________________________________________________________
NEVADA STATE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS RE-CONSIDER STATE BAN ON MARRIAGE RIGHTS
Change afoot in Nevada Legislature as Republicans recognize and acknowledge rising public support, civil rights, and not least of all, the additional revenue generated from license fees, marriage documents, and consumer spending by providing legal recognition of full marriage equality and legal status and recognition under state law for married same sex couples.-Brock S. Evans
April 7, 2013
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics/cultural-changes-alter-views-nevada-legislature
Cultural changes alter views at Nevada
Legislature
By LAURA MYERS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Recognizing a
cultural shift, some top Nevada Republican lawmakers have joined an effort to
repeal the states’s decade-old constitutional language that defines marriage as
between a man and a woman, taking the first step toward possibly legalizing gay
marriage.
Republicans also are working with Democrats to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries a dozen years after the Legislature approved pot for such use. Three GOP members joined Sen. Tick Segerblom, a Las Vegas Democrat and a leading liberal voice, and two other Democrats on a field trip to Arizona to check out that state’s legal weed wares.
Another clear demonstration of the social shift happening in Carson City this session came March 21 when the Nevada Senate passed a bill 20-1 to add crimes against transgender people to a list of hate crimes. Six Republican senators who had voted against a similar bill two years ago voted for the 2013 measure.
Later, Sen. Joe Hardy, R-Boulder City, the lone two-time no vote, said he should have approved this year’s Senate Bill 139. What changed his mind? Talking with the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Patricia Spearman, D-North Las Vegas, the gay pastor who defeated former Sen. John Lee, a Democrat. Lee helped kill the bill in 2011 by crossing party lines.
“That, to me, is an example of the profound cultural shift we’re seeing in just a two-year period,” said Bob Fulkerson, state director and co-founder of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. “Whether it is for election reasons or people actually having a change of heart is debatable. I just think it shows that equality and civil rights don’t have to be partisan issues anymore.
“The shift has happened,” he added. “The people are leading and the leaders are following.”
A SHIFT ACROSS THE NATION
What’s playing out in Nevada can be seen nationwide in the wake of a 2012 election that saw Republicans fail to win the White House or take over the U.S. Senate. Exit polls showed younger, minority voters overwhelmingly siding with President Barack Obama and his party, leaving the GOP behind.
The GOP’s newfound zeal for immigration reform is another fallout from the election as Hispanics neared one-fifth of the electorate in Nevada. This year, Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas, is pushing more English-language learning in schools. And he backs Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis, D-Las Vegas, in his bid to provide driver privilege cards to undocumented immigrants so they can buy car insurance.
Nevada has long had a live-and-let-live reputation, allowing brothels to operate since the 19th century and legalizing gambling in 1931, partly as a way to boost the economy and ride out the Great Depression. Nevada also became a mecca for quickie weddings and divorces, drawing even more visitors to the tourism-dependent state.
This year, the need to revive the economy played a role in Gov. Brian Sandoval signing an urgent bill to allow online gaming so that Nevada would remain competitive with other states such as New Jersey and Delaware.
Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said the need to find new revenue sources could be partially behind some Republicans shifting stances on gay marriage and marijuana.
Nevada was
built on catering to people whose desires might not be acceptable everywhere,
Herzik said.
“We were into quickie marriage and quickie divorce, but we wouldn’t do it for gays? We lost an opportunity for income. ... Nevada is usually kind of out there on the borderline of the moral frontier,” Herzik said.
LEGALIZING
GAY MARRIAGE
Changing
attitudes among Nevada voters also could account for the shifting political
stances, Herzik said.
A poll
conducted earlier this year by the Retail Association of Nevada found that 54
percent of voters in Nevada want the constitutional ban on gay marriage
repealed, while 43 percent want it to stay in place.
A New York Times analysis of states’ views nationwide showed a similar shift with more people accepting same-sex marriage. If that trend continues, a projection by Nate Silver of the Times showed that in Nevada some 59.2 percent would support a same-sex marriage ballot initiative by 2016 and 65.2 percent by 2020.
That’s quite
a turnaround in popular views in just a decade. In 2000 and 2002, two-thirds of
Nevada voters approved the “Protection of Marriage Act” defining marriage as
between a man and a woman.
This session’s Senate Joint Resolution 13 to remove the constitutional language must be approved by lawmakers in 2013 and again during the 2015 legislative session before going to voters in 2016 for ratification. If the provision is repealed, lawmakers could then legalize same-sex marriage by passing a bill in 2017.
Legalizing gay marriage may be another tough fight, particularly since in 2009 Nevada lawmakers enacted domestic partnerships, extending some marriagelike rights to couples living together whether gay or not. Those rights included community property and the right to seek financial support after a breakup.
SJR13 has key
support from Republican Senate Minority Leader Roberson.
“I have always believed that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, and I have never understood why government has a role in this relationship,” Roberson said in a statement. “However, given the fact that the government does license and sanction marriage in Nevada, it is difficult for me to justify differential treatment based upon sexual orientation.
“Although my personal definition of marriage has not changed, as both a practicing attorney and an elected representative of the state of Nevada, I cannot justify treating one group of individuals differently under the law than another,” he added.
His position is similar to that of Nevada’s Republican governor.
“My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Sandoval said in a statement. “But as governor, I believe the people of Nevada should have the freedom to decide should this issue come before them for a vote.”
Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, supported the resolution during a hearing last week. He said he believes voters will back the repeal and he questioned whether the state should dictate to any religious organization who can marry.
“The institution of marriage is something I take very, very seriously,” Kieckhefer said.
The resolution also got support from some in the gaming industry and from some religious leaders.
A few people
spoke in opposition, including Richard Ziser, who represented Nevada Concerned
Citizens and who was chairman of the committee that got the pro-heterosexual
marriage act on the ballot in the first place. The conservative Republican
later ran against U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., but lost badly.
Dan Burdish, a former executive director of the Nevada GOP who is openly gay, talked to Ziser after the hearing. Ziser told him “it’s going to be the end of the Republican Party” if the resolution passes, Burdish recalled.
“I said, ‘No, if Republicans don’t vote for this, it is going to be the end of the Republican Party,’ ” Burdish said.
Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, a Democrat who was in the Legislature from 1991 to 2006, said she has been pleasantly surprised watching the shifting on social issues in the Legislature.
“I think people are actually listening, and it’s blowing me away,” Giunchigliani said. “When the public has come to accept something, I think it gives them cover.”
ACCESS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Giunchigliani sponsored the law in 2001 that legalized medical marijuana after voters approved such a measure on the ballot in 1998 and 2000. Giunchigliani said she originally included dispensaries in her bill so patients could have access to marijuana but some lawmakers objected to having the state involved in regulating pot.
As a result, she used the Oregon model and the law allowed people to grow their own marijuana, up to seven plants. The system hasn’t worked, however, making it difficult for Nevada’s 3,645 medical marijuana card holders.
Segerblom has since taken up the cause, introducing Senate Bill 374 to create medical marijuana dispensaries in Nevada. He led the bipartisan trip on March 22 to Arizona to visit a nonprofit dispensary.
Segerblom’s
proposal would help create easy access to marijuana for medical purposes and
would bring in revenue to the state from licensing dispensaries. The cost would
be $20,000 for an initial permit. He also projected the number of people
getting medical marijuana cards would increase by 10 times. It costs $150 a year
for a card.
Segerblom also is sponsor of SJR13, the resolution that could lead to legalized gay marriage and millions of dollars more in revenue for the state and local entities that perform the ceremonies.
Asked about getting less GOP resistance these days, Segerblom said money and politics are in play.
“I think they are hiding behind increased revenues to justify their change, which is really because they see the voters support gay marriage, pot and other things which Republicans traditionally oppose,” Segerblom said.
During a
Friday hearing on Segerblom’s bill, one of the Republicans who accompanied him
to Arizona made clear that he wanted dispensaries to operate like pharmacies
and not like the “Jerry Garcia lounge.”
“I didn’t vote for medical marijuana,” Sen. Mark Hutchison, R-Las Vegas, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But I will, and I think other members of this committee from both parties will uphold the rule of law. There is a constitutional right to have this and to use this. Now let’s make it as safe as we possibly can.”
His comments
signal there’s not yet broad support for Nevada lawmakers to legalize marijuana
for recreational use as Colorado and Washington have done, although Assembly
Bill 402 has been introduced to do just that.
Contact Laura
Myers at lmyers@reviewjournal.com
or 702-387-2919. Follow @lmyerslvrj on Twitter.
_______________________________________________________________________
Election for Mayor of Los Angeles 2013
March 26, 2013
Brock S. Evans
Seems like I have been posting and writing every where but my blog lately. Everywhere being FM and comments published on articles in the media. Since retirement, now I know what's it's like to have time to complain about everything. Still need to post in Daily Update my almost done essays on my internal annual hibernation cycle, throughts on trying to focus, publicize and commercialize my blog. Below are some comments supporting Jan Perry in the primary. After a few days of media attention, I thought I better get started on posting my comments on the runoff
Below are comments I posted to 2 different articles in the LA Times.
Most
dysfunctional incompetent campaign has unexpectedly to me revealed her to be
utterly incompetent and unqualified to serve, much to my surprise. Her
electoral political career is over and she is the one who brought it to a
disgraceful ignoble end. Increasing safety personnel, eliminating business
taxes and fees, providing free access to public facilities to grossly
profitable industries, while catering to every whim of profitable industry and
employee organizations does not add up. We can all do the math. Unions have the
right to demand equitable compensation and fair bargaining. Public
representatives have the obligation to protect public resources without
fleecing a population barely surviving. Secret backroom deals promising who
knows what public resources to both industry and labor behind closed doors is
irresponsible. Providing greater employee benefits to the DPW union than to
safety personnel makes no sense, especially when said union has matched DPW's
brazen contempt for the public it serves. Hiring, compensating, and ignoring
the public advocate is worthy of Wonderland. You get what you pay for. Beholden
and owing her unlikely election to those who funded her campaign, industry and
labor will get all they want. Finding savings and efficiency is her duty, not a
miracle. Exaggerating same disingenuous duplicitous at best, shows flawed
character. Payback is a
No Still voting Eric.
Disgusted but in politics mutual back scratching loyalty is everything. Based
on the other coast, this is an endorsement based more on loyalty and payback than
a studious review of local issues. Does it matter in the context of abysmal
turnout and the public's limited attention span. I was initially fond of 3
candidates, but voted Jan Perry based her straightforward plain dealing with
the public as well as her service in a challenging district. Greuel's bluster
finding misspent or wasted money, a duty of her office, was proven to be
overblown and disingenuous at best. Then she wants to eliminate business taxes
and fees, hire thousands more employees, and promise whatever labor and
industry demanded to fund her campaign while ignoring DPW's contempt for the
public interest. The math doesn't add up. Her failure to disclose to the public
promises made behind closed doors raise concerns about whose interest she will
represent. Her focus imaginatively speculating first that the other female
candidate would withdraw, and then attacking her for her husband's business
failing rather than address differences on issues was grossly mean spirited
demeaning hypocritical as a male candidate would be sexist for such
unconscionable deliberate personal attacks rather than addressing issues. I no
longer consider Greuel to have ethical standards worthy of elected office.
________________________________________________________________February 7, 2013
by Brock S. Evans
Seems to me that pettiness, resentment, bureaucratic
ineptness, nitpicking, and delay, over-rated self-importance, and
under-realized or skewed perspective would be "there" rather than
missing or present in the eye of any beholder just as surely as you are unable
to find beauty or courage. Perhaps you
stopped searching too soon or failed to look under all of the council seats
instead of focusing on just one.
Starting with the skewed perspective, I eagerly await your
list of LA city council members, much less other elected officials in local
government, who have "been willing to stand up to the corporate lobbyists
whose clients have been [her] biggest financial supporters and the
beneficiaries of her advocacy over her 12-year tenure on the City Council?"
Not that I agree with your premise here regarding Ms.
Perry's motivations for any particular decision or action as a member of the
Council. But really, is this a stand for
one member or for all? How about all the
council members who stood up to the billboard industry over the years and
adopted a clear concise workable and efffective ordinance regulating all
billboard types around the city? Oh that
one doesn't exist yet.
OK how about the model legislation regulating the medical
marijuana dispensaries that provide for the safe monitored and legal
disbursement in a reasonable number of locations to allow convenient access
without undue proliferation, increase of petty crime, or affect the quality of
life outside schools. Right - they
missed on that one also, and now we can choose among 3 alternatives on the next
ballot bringing to mind the question, what is the purpose of having a city
council that is increasingly unable to timely adopt effective lasting
legislation that actually addresses much less resolves the subject issue?
Redistricting? Sorry
Koreatown, maybe in 10 years you can be a unified community in one district
with singular representation so your voice can be as strong as other
communities in other districts.
Powerbrokers and lobbyists over people seems to me to be the motto of
the current council.
I can think of no better example than having a DWP Ratepayer
Advocate. The powerbrokers tried to
prevent that position from being created.
Only the "mere" people who pay for the service wanted a
representative. So now we the people
have our Ratepayer Advocate, whom the powerbrokers can ignore just as easily as
they can refuse to hold a public hearing or seek expert documentation relevant
to the issue. So as they say, we have
the kind of solution for which no entity is better at achieving than the
current council, the admittedly vapid yet best of all worlds, the people’s
victory of achieving the creation of the position of Ratepayer Advocate and the
Powerbrokers/ Overseers ability to completely ignore the Ratepayer
Advocate. Perfect. We are now funding a
position the purpose of which is to gather documentation and provide input to a
body that refuses to listen or review the information.
I really consider it a treat and a blessing that the current
mayoral campaign brings such pandering to the private rather than public
interests into the open, just for a moment, just barely, as we see 2 candidates
offering deals, taxbreaks, and favors to a virtual film industry meeting in
response to a hypothetical film industry at a recent public forum. Yet Councilwoman Perry was the one who was
willing to speak of corporate responsibility to address the public or greater
good rather than offer to give away anything they could get their hands
on.
From there, these 2 make a mad rush to closed door meetings
with union officials promising what we will never know in order to secure an
endorsement. I am sure the union had a
good time upping the bids from the competitors.
Of course, one of them has already found all that lost or
wasted money that has been placed back in the city treasury to fund giveaways
to corporations and unions, seems fair, hire more police and firemen, not
against that, and surely she will one day find enough to solve any pension
problem which may exist.
i have nothing against unions anymore than I have against healthy food, sold by local residents earning a living wage, But with the former when the employer is a public entity or govenrment the public has just as much right to fair effective representation of its assets as does the union. And it seems to me the union is well run and effective.
And of course since you needed to determine the type of food
sold, the residence of employees, the prevailing wage, and gosh knows what
other minutiae, relevant or not, helpful or not, reasonable or not, precedent
setting or not, and review all those papers and contracts of course it took so
long that the company selected went bankrupt before the contract was signed. More important, you had finally achieved a
position with just enough power to obfuscate, delay, and prevent the opening of
a successful business to improve the economic condition and healh of the
area. So what good did that do?
More leadership from the only candidate for Mayor of Los
Angeles who knows the definition of the word, more shirking of duty by a
responsibility-averse, informed decision making averse, inept, dysfunctional
and irresponsible City Council.
Irresponsible in the truest sense of the word - marijuana dispensaries -
why risk popularity by approving a responsible measure to allow them when you
can simply approve them, then ban them, then avoid decision making, and punt to
the voters who now have 3 measures to choose from; billboards, same thing. and a million others, by timid electeds who
avoid controversy by avoiding problem resolution, and the public become more
cynical as nothing gets done.
Thanks Jan. Unfortunately your soon to be former colleagues continue to avoid informed decision making as they avoid rather than resolve issues that continue to fester. Who ever heard of a public body refusing to hold a public hearing, not wanting more information. This is just what I feared when the ratepayer advocate was approved; just because we have one doesn't mean our representatives will listen. So they barely tolerate and ignore the only person representing an informed public view as they show their disdain for the voters who elected them, and are forced to pay these rates without effecitve input. This ignorant childish reaction of confusing a request for more input with opposition has always been dangerous to the public good. This city sorely needs leaders who know the definition of the word.
___________________________________________________________________________
Recently the Positive Justice Project (which in general advocates for persons with HIV who are incarcerated) posted on the HIV/AIDS Legal Listserve to which I continue to subscribe the results of their months long effort to urge the PACHA to adopt a resolution urging that states abandon or eliminate the transmission of HIV as a crime and prosecution of HIV exposure as a criminal act. This does not mean that deliberate HIV exposure will occur as a result. The issue is too complex and nuanced to discuss in detail here. But the basis for many such prosecutions have been based on fear rather than science and knowledge. Below is the email I message I creaated after th PJP urged folks to submit letters of support to PACHA.
http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/560
http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/563
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Positive-Justice-Project/166319170046118
February 6,
2013
BY: Brock S.
Evans, retired, Senior Equal Opportunity Specialist, Office for Civil Rights,
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
TO: Distinguished Members of the President's
Advisory Council on AIDS (PACHA):
Thank
you for your service as working members of this important advisory council. As
someone who reached the age of consent no more than 2 years prior to the onset
of the epidemic that we now refer to as AIDS, I well remember the days when no
such professional panel of experts existed, when fear and ignorance were among
the most harmful side effects of the effort to address the devastating impact
throughout the United States. Back then so much was unknown, fear was rampant,
legal protections of confidentiality and dsability rights were few. Out of the
ignorance and fear rose many efforts to contain or address the impact of HIV on
individuals and of any impact those individuals may have had on the public.
Many
of the measures later determined to be ineffective and irrelevant as infection
control were actually harmful to those with HIV, even if only by limiting their
rights and privileges. With the passing of years, I can barely remember many of
those measures or restrictions. One significant result is that experts found no
or little, infrequent basis for which persons with HIV should be confined or
isolated or treated differentially, solely based on their HIV status.
Many,
many years later we live in a political environment of heightened ideological
discourse in which every nuance of every measure is parsed over for any item
that could cause fear or dissension. Updating policies and guidance fall victim
to the fear of a spotlight distorting the basis for improvement into a spin of
inaccurate analysis intended to confuse the public and sabotage advancement as
media raise unsubstantiated fears in order to successfully market their
product. Facts and knowledge become less relevant every day, when ideology
drives legislation and legal matters. The resolution before you addresses an
ill-begotten and misguided measure to treat HIV exposure or infection as a
criminal matter.
Admittedly,
it is most controversial and ripe for distortion. Of course, no one believes
that attempting to infect someone with HIV should not be a concern worthy of
well thought out effective actions. But it seems to me the laws addressed in
this resolution remain in force due to the fear of public reaction resulting
from their improvement.
Those professionals who have expertise on this matter who have conducted the
research and collated that supportive of change are much more qualified than I
to address the specific points. So I will simply urge you to carefully review
the relevant material and reach a decision based on science, research and
knowledge.
Finally
I wish to mention that last Fall I retired after 38 years of continuous Federal
service, 34 of them with the HEW/ED now HHS Office for Civil Rights, at the San
Francisco Regional office from 1978-2001 and at the Los Angeles Field office
from 2001 - 2012. In 1986, I lived in a world of fear, ignorance, sickness and
death. Friends, neighbors, and coworkers were sick and dying rapidly. The
office was becoming depleted. The administration took the view that fear of
contagion did not represent discrimination. Our Regional Manager resigned and
Congress held hearings on OCR and HIV as a basis of discrimination. Eventually,
the legal view evolved. An AIDS Conference was about to be held, no one with
interest was left in OCR, and I believed that an AIDS Conference has got to be
more depressing than a funeral, or a lot of them, having just come from one for
my roommate.
But
I went to that conference albeit determined to flee at the first sign of
emotions. However, the emotional reaction I experienced was far removed from
the one I expected. Being among persons from all professions and none, all
seeking to reduce the impact and harm caused by HIV and make the world a better
place was one of the most unexpectedly uplifting experiences of my life. A
communal effort to make the world a better place can be healing, the search for
and acquisition of knowledge can be enlightening and participating in the
effort can return hope.
I
know how this issue plays in mass media sound bites. But it seems to me that Commissions
are formed in order to study relevant issues in depth, and make a decision
based on facts and knowledge rather than fear, based on appropriate
documentation, and then to guide those you serve to adopt, recommend, or issue
decisions in a manner conducive to public acceptance.
December 24, 2012
FASTEN YOUR FISCAL
SEATBELT; PREPARE YOUR FINANCIAL PARACHUTE; FISCAL CLIFF RAPIDLY APPROACHING;
SURVIVAL LIKELY; THRIVING POSSIBLE; HEALTH INSURANCE COUNTDOWN TO OPENING STARTS
IN 9 MONTHS
Part 1
My thoughts on the election aftermath, the current chaos in
Congress, the Federal government’s dire budget, the economic cliff, the opening
to the door of health insurance, and the realization by many members and
opponents that the Republican Party has not only failed to achieve their
primary goals for the last 60 years, but federal regulation, oversight, and
regulation of basic health and social survival for the non-wealthy has expanded
and strengthened.
This one started as a one paragraph commentary submission to
the Washington Post in response to an excellent column by E. J. Dionne hitting
on all the obvious points since the election and the House Republicans most
recent debacle or fiasco. Mr. Dionne has
written impressively on Federal politics for many years. The column is reprinted below my own
commentary.
I
finally got past all the nonsensical foolish misleading and reality avoiding drivel
from the right wing nuts out there toward realization of what their failed
leaders are seeing.
Well-stated,
Mr. Dionne, hitting all points. As you inferred, the question now seems to be
whether these allegedly moderate and common-sense Republican House members will
have the political courage to sign a discharge petition, should that become
necessary if the Senate passes a reasonable plan and the Speaker (consistent
with his foolish cowardly inability or refusal to grow up and demonstrate
competent leadership) refuses to allow a vote on such a proposal. A discharge
petition seems to be one of our governing system's few ways out of this mess and
political and fiscal chaos for the next 2 years. So what will you choose Repub
House members - courage, wisdom, and problem-solving, or chaos, temper
tantrums, and infantile-enabling problem-causing and solution avoidance. The
choice of either actually working for and helping our country and people or
harming us and continuing to worsen our problems seems about to be yours.
That
was the one paragraph version submitted to and printed in the Post earlier this
morning. To expand and explain a little,
it seems to me there is moderate common sense majority in the House, but it is
not organized or effective because it consists of a minority of Republican and
majority of Democratic House members. To
be effective, they would all have to momentarily abandon party alignment to
choose a Speaker supported by the majority of House members who belong to both
parties. This actually recently happened
in the Texas state legislature when Democrats and moderate Republicans joined
to select a Speaker who is a moderate Republican over a right wing
Republican.
The
House Speaker (through his own designated authority and the Rules Committee)
controls the agenda and whether to allow particular bills to be voted on, the
version allowed, and what amendments are allowed. After his disastrous failure to pass the sham
“Plan B” in order to avoid sincere negotiations with the President, he has
shown that he is either unable, incapable or unwilling to lead his members and
the country out of this mess. Whether or
not he continues as Speaker, he has abandoned his leadership responsibility, due
to a combination of political cowardice and reality avoidance and incompetence. He is truly the lame duck now.
The
point of my column is to raise and discuss one practical but perhaps
politically unlikely way out of this current mess and as a consequence carve a
new path to reasonable common-sense governance and leadership for the next 2
years in this current Congressional term.
However,
it is unlikely both because it is rare, and because it depends on moderate
House Republicans to step up to their responsibilities, take a stand based on
intellectual honesty and quality of governance, thus making themselves targets
for the right wing members of their party they are trying to ignore while they
seek to avoid their attention, and show political courage, for none of which they have ever demonstrated
the least inclination.
If they were to choose this path, the success of the results of such a choice could serve to inoculate them from right wing pressure better than any other methods they have tried, and could also rescue their abhorrent party from possible oblivion as soon as the next election, although I would be the last person wising to save the despicable Republican Party, the current version of which is demonstrably antithetical to common decency, acceptable moral values, and the U. S. Constitution itself.
I’ll save for another column whether I believe this makes
the current Republican Party actual traitors to the US and our Constitution in
fact and deed as being too incendiary for the purpose of trying to create space
for true principled compromise based on actual elections results and desires of
voters and common sense proposals likely to be effective, regardless of
nonsensical Republican opposition.
So as I see it, should the Senate actually pass a proposal to address the current economic fiscal, economic, and budget situation that is acceptable to the President, his principles, and the majority of American voters as expressed in the last election, the question becomes whether the Speaker would allow members to vote on a proposal opposed by the majority of House Republican voters. This seems to me to be a lose-lose situation for current Speaker, as either way he loses effectiveness and respect. As he is mostly responsible for putting himself in this situation I have not a granule of sand’s worth of empathy.
The House rules require the House to vote on any proposal or
measure for which the majority of members have signed a discharge petition. Should all the Democrats and a significant
enough members of the House minority sign such a position requiring a vote on a
theoretical at this point resolution approved by the Senate, and then actually
vote for the measure, they would not only resolve the current fiscal crisis,
ensure improvement in the economy and well being of Americans for the next 2
years, they would demonstrate the potential for a very effective 2 year session
of Congress that would benefit the country.
They would also demonstrate acceptance of the reality of the
last election’s result and the choice made by a significant majority of
American voters, thereby paving the way for their own potential success.
To Be Continued - Part 2 - in which I discuss the Republicans failed effort for 60 years to undermine Social Security, 40 years to undermine Medicare, and current failure to overtune health insurance reform thus expanding federal regulation of health and social welfare, the oppostion of which is the basis of their party. And how the realization of long term defeat of their goals has resulted in their current obstinancy and refusal to accept reality.
_________________________________________________________________________
HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Stigma Discrimination and the Law
Here are my thoughts.
I
just thought I would add my perspective as a former investigator for HHS/OCR
which enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability,
including HIV, and enforces HIPAA, which prohibits impermissible disclosures of
protected health information by covered entities, which is not as simple as it
sounds and it doesn't sound that simple. I think my comments come under 3
categories:
1)
Discrimination will never end;
2)
Enforcement will never be effective, thus;3) Needless harm will continue to occur.
1.
Discrimination will never end.
In
addition to having time to reflect on my lifelong interest in civil rights
enforcement, I have had more time to research especially the history of
discrimination in health care based on race, which is what got me started in
1974 or so, particularly an excellent book "Health Care Divided - Race and
Healing A Nation" by David Barton Smith, Ph.D., now at Drexel University I
believe. I remember thinking in the 70s, all these people shed their blood,
sweat, and tears, and their lives, to get these civil rights laws passed. Now
what about enforcement? That's what interested me - as a political science
student at UC Berkeley - and eventually drew me to OCR to see how and if these
laws would truly be enforced.
Of
course the struggle for equality began way before the 1960s as Dr. Smith
documents so thoroughly. I will concede that discrimination based on race is
not as prevalent or dire as it once was in the US. But I would postulate that
the purpose or intent of nondiscrimination law was not to eliminate
discrimination, and surely no one thought it would be prevented 100% of the
time, but to ensure a mechanism by which discriminatory acts would be addressed
and resolved and remedied. But certainly no one can say that race-based
discrimination has ceased in the US.
So
too I would postulate that disability based discrimination, and certainly the
most virulent form, that against persons with HIV or regarded as having HIV,
will never end, and in these short number of years, has barely subsided. Thus,
unless someone can show some proof, I see extensive documentation that HIV
based discrimination continues and is pervasive throughout the US and shows
little signs of decreasing; while conceding that it may not be as prevalent,
that is really not saying much.
2.
Enforcement
Agencies
such as OCR have less funding, fewer resources and more cases than at any time
in its history as far as I can determine. In addition, HIPAA enforcement has so
burdened OCR that it can barely handle any other issue. So I do not believe
that sufficient resources exist to handle the increased number of cases that
would be brought if the HIV + status of more persons is revealed.
Others
have mentioned actual examples worse than this one. But I think an actual
anecdote I heard just last week is an example of the untold toll of HIV
discrimination. Through the help of an HIV services agency, a client gets back
on her feet, achieves a state of health, returns to work as a hair stylist.
Until somehow someone at the salon found out she is HIV +, She lost her chair,
her job, her housing, her health and goes on a downward spiral until the HIV
services agency again steps into help.
So I
said, did she sue? And here is the reality that even I don't first think of.
Sure DOJ just issued stringent guidelines on the nondiscriminatory provision of
occupational licensure, in response to a case involving a stylist in Puerto
Rico. But in this case she was a contractor renting one chair. And so if her
clients find out and choose not to see her, she can't very well sue clients or
individuals for not patronizing her. And if it was a salon that could be sued,
how long would that take and what would she do meanwhile?
So
multiply this by the thousands if there is no confidentiality protections for
persons with HIV.
Then
there is the courts. Sure sometimes an egregious case brings a tremendous
victory after spending enormous resources of time and money. But are there
really more attorneys and more legal advocates out there rolling in money and
resources to take on untold numbers of additional cases?
I
think my 3rd point has been made.
Finally,
with respect to HIPAA, OCR has a solid record of issuing enormous Civil
Monetary Penalties for the impermissible disclosure of protected health
information by covered entities. And nothing anyone can do short of an act of
Congress will change HIPAA. So be mindful of that. As well be mindful that no
amount of money can erase the information that was impermissibly disclosed.
And
speaking of HIPAA, I think of those untold number of cases that don't reach the
CMP stage. I am thinking of an employed individual with HIV whose employer is
unaware of her or his status and does not need to be aware. Of said employee
suffering a nonwork related injury, perhaps an auto accident. Accommodation or
time off is needed. Medical documentation must be provided. Said employee
authorizes disclosure of ONLY the information relevant to tne injury and
specifically forbids dislosure of HIV treatment and medication, not only in
writing but in person. But, oops, some clerk, perhaps overworked, perhaps
absent minded, perhaps careless, what difference does it make, discloses more
than the minimum necessary and now the employer knows the employee's HIV status
and not by the volition of the employee. Maybe the employer will understand,
maybe not.
If
your livelihood, housing, food substenance, dependants perhaps, was based on
taking that chance, would you?
In
conclusion I think we need to be mindful of the most vulnerable among us when
considering such a dire risk, that someone could lose everything they have, no
matter how much or how little that is, for what purpose?
To
prove that discrimination and stigma is less than what? when? how much less?
Two additional
points
-
persons with other medical conditions, from cancer to diabetes to you name it,
do not face the same level of discrimination faced by persons with HIV. Would
that styist have lost her chair if she had diabetes, did that employee fear his
employer would learn he has diabetes or whatever else you want to substitute.
It just seems to me absurd on its face to equate HIV with diabetes or other
medical conditions. HIV-related stigma is incomparable to stigma related to
diabetes
-
just because there is a law doesn’t mean it will not be violated.
Someone
pointed out that James Madison said:
“If men were angels, no
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external
nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government
which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:
you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the
primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the
necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
I always remember a project in Michigan I think called the
“Shut Up Project” – her message was don’t tell anyone, not your closest friend,
family member, coworker and had lots of anecdotes of trusted confidants
revealing disclosures for negative purposes.
I just wanted to make a point I thought rather obvious which is just
because there are laws doesn’t mean the problem is solved. I guess I could have made the point that all
laws are broken, speeding, murder, etc.
Throughout my career I thought the laws are great but what
good are they without effective enforcement.
To apply a law’s regulatory requirements to a particular fact situation
can be problematic enough but without sufficient resources and commitment of
those in authority was always a concern.
But I didn’t let that concern stop me from bringing a worthy case
forward to the point of decision making by the legal and management
authorities. Then there are the
obstacles of increased scrutiny for cases in which violations are found, to the
point of sending those to HQ for further review and delay, countervailing
strategies to obtain settlements with effective corrective actions and then the
managerial response to require approval of settlements in HQ. Consistency among regions is good but at what
point is the increased scrutiny meant to delay and obfuscate. Each administration has its own policies and
procedures to streamline or seem to obstruct.
So to me an investigator and the local managers need to be committed and
clever enough to overcome these obstacles.
Which is rather sad to say the least.
And then there are the challenges of funding and budgetary cycles.
Since I retired I found that I missed writing and had the
time and will to reflect on and write about my experience during my career
since joining this civil rights enforcement agency to see how these laws would
work. I don’t want to give too negative
impression. In the end it was more than
worth it. The victories were many and
meaningful and by far outweighed the setbacks.
At least for me and my experience in my region. Maybe next I should write about those
cases.
My other point I want to make is to encourage folks to use
the system as is, including OCR as appropriate.
To do otherwise is to allow the obstructers to minimize the
problems. One ongoing debate since day 1
was outreach – why do more outreach in times of backlog and disappoint people
and have even more cases? I came down on
the side of the more cases the better, no matter the resources. The funders and appropriators will make their
decisions at will, but document the need if for nothing else then to let
history judge the need existed and the funders failed. Just as I pushed cases to the point that the
manager with authority had to decide to approve or not; I would not let anyone
off the hook so to speak. And
sometimes, more often than is perceived, the case wins, the point is made. If they are not going to sufficiently fund
anyway at least ensure there is as many cases as possible to show the need for
resources.
And so as part of this point is don’t hesitate to file an
OCR complaint when appropriate, and follow up with staff and push and maintain
contact because you may obtain appropriate action, but neither let yourself or
client believe that you will win until you do.
I think when it comes to HIV discrimination there is not as much
regional differences as people perceive but I acknowledge there are some. Getting someone with HIV into a SNF in LA is
about as challenging as Birmingham I presume.
Brock S. Evans
December
17, 2012________________________________________________________________________
Maureen Dowd stated the 2016 elections season speculation columnist punditry with another one of her anit-Hilary, Obama insulting, Euro-centric world view, smarmy, snarky, condescending and demeaning and insulting attacks. I couldn't help responding. My response comments got 17 LIKES on the NYT. Count em and weep Maureen and you Hilary haters I am sick of you. After 8 years of your sniping and carping during the last Clinton admin and I say NEVER AGAIN in the next Clinton administration So there. Here's my spiel:
"There she goes again; referring to Dowd, not HRC. Just when I was starting to like her again these last few years for the first time since the pre-Clinton era, Maureen seems determined to provide the old discredited adage about womens' competitive nature. If Dowd hates Hil so much, or is so envious there is a smarter, tougher, more powerful, and yes I am going to say it, hotter, woman out there, then please, Maureen, move to Dublin, Paris, London, anywhere so I don't have to read your hateful pretentious demeaning and condescending putdowns and sniping at the smartest woman in American politics in history, in your disdainful campaign to get liberals, oops, we're progressives now, eat their own. NYT plesae stop her before it's too late, or at least send to her to one "Post" or the other, the NDN, anywhere I don't care where. I feel better, now these comments are good for the next 12 years and you can re-run them anytime. Bye Ms. Dowd, it's been nice knowing you but I'm done with you."
More likes than I ever got on the Washington Post. There's more Hilary lovers than haters out there - her poll ratings are higher than ever and highest out there. Puts me in 92nd place out of 332 comments according to voting by NYT commenters. 5 more likes gets me in the top 70!!! LOL don't know if you can like here or if you have to go to the article and search for my comments. Yes i did county them all till 92, or was it 91? Sorry comments are closed and i guess so are likes cuz i cant like any others so i have to settle for 92nd place or was it 91st. Still it's a record, if only I wasn't so busy being productive today being AWAY from my computer and out in the REAL world.
According to my research just now, as of January 2013 there will be 5 women governors, 4 of whom are Republican! Dem in NH, Reps in AZ, NM, OK, NM. I don't remember seeing any columnist writing about that disturbing fact.
__________________________________________________________________
Following is a column I was alerted to in this blog on progressive politics in California. Below is my supportive comments in response. You can find it here.
http://www.calitics.com/diary/14727/#47032
When LGBT Stands for "Let's Get By Together"by: Troy PerryMon Dec 03, 2012 at 15:34:18 PM PST |
| The gathering of hundreds of elected officials from the lesbian and gay community in Long Beach this past weekend for the conference of the Victory Fund is a happy occasion. Southern California voters, especially here in L.A. County, have proved hospitable to LGBT candidates of both parties and helped achieve breakthroughs in representation for openly gay leaders. |
But a few players in gay politics here recently took stances contrary to well-qualified LGBT Democratic candidates and hampered their ability to win. Assembly Speaker John Perez, state Senator-elect Ricardo Lara, and L.A. County Democratic Party chair Eric Bauman, who works for the Speaker, all joined this year in opposing both Westside Democrat Torie Osborn, seeking to represent the 50th Assembly District, and Luis Lopez, an Eastside Democrat running in my 51st Assembly District. Both were exceptionally well-prepared and strong gay candidates, but both lost, Osborn in a costly June primary and Lopez in a hard-fought general election after becoming the only LGBT candidate from Southern California who would be new to the legislature to compete in the general election. Instead of making the path of these candidates easier, three gay men in positions to help made their road more difficult. How sad. The strength of L.A.'s diverse electorate is now pulling the state toward one-party governance, putting a brighter public spotlight on Democratic leaders' conduct. The power of money also tempts elected and party bosses to ignore the bonds of LGBT solidarity that have historically fueled the success of openly gay candidates. The decision by gay officials to turn away from or turn against our own at election time should face a challenge, lest it become an acceptable pattern of behavior that blocks excellent leaders and weakens our movement. I know the excuses: Party politics are messy, new district lines shook up the landscape for this election, and deals with competing interest groups get made, with survival and self-interest in mind. Still, there's no reason L.A. County, with the largest population of LGBT people and families of any single jurisdiction in the country, shouldn't be sending 4, instead of 2, openly LGBT advocates to Sacramento for swearing-in today. What lost opportunities, and at what expense! In the Westside district, Speaker Perez amassed scores of delegates and spent a fortune to deny Osborn the Democratic party endorsement. Party machinery then squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to anoint its preferred candidate, only to have an independent Democrat, Santa Monica mayor Richard Bloom, emerge triumphant. On the Eastside, in my district where I took part in protests 45 years ago that launched the local LGBT freedom movement, I was excited by the prospect of electing Luis Lopez. I have known Lopez for years and admired his mix of elected and appointed community service and leadership in the LGBT community, working to start the first Latino statewide gay political group and fighting Prop 8. But outspent by hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate and union money on behalf of a candidate who just moved into the district, Lopez lost out to a guy who will be the third in a row of recently arrived candidates, now making his debut in our community as ... Assemblymember. When machine politics calls the shots, knowledge of one's district is no requirement for the job. I support the Victory Fund and am glad they held their conference here in California. And I hope that when Perez, Lara, or Bauman talk to people in the LGBT community, listeners apply the asterisk, indicating that some exceptions may apply when they say "we" and talk about the strength of "our community." I am proud of the gains by LGBT candidates in this election. I just wish there were a few more here at home. Rev. Troy Perry is founder of the Universal Fellowship of the Metropolitan Community Church in 1968 and a plaintiff in the marriage cases seeking full recognition for thousands of committed same-sex couples under California law, including his own union, with husband Phillip De Blieck. |
Thank you Rev. Perry. I couldn't have said it better myself. First, though, I feel compelled to share that way back when I was young and coming out and accepting myself and rejecting the Catholic Church (still do) and any religious organization (more open now, as are they, thanks in part to you), you carved a different path through a never before explored wilderness to show that a church can be accepting, even if I wasn't listening at the time.
But as to the subject here, I also live in District 51, for 5 years now, after 30+ in San Francisco. Unlike you, I did not know Luis Lopez. I first read about him in the sample ballot in the June primary election. The more I read I felt like I needed a reality check - was I really living in LA in 2012 or did I unknowingly slip into a time machine back to SF circa 197?
So for the first time since, I found myself walking precincts and attending fundraisers for an openly gay progressive candidate tuned into the grassroots and involved in community organizations in this district for the betterment of all, and organizing against Prop 8 in East LA, no less. Harvey would be so proud.
This election reminded me so much of that era - grassroots community minded openly gay candidates having to be insurgents against the liberal Democratic gay establishment. "It's My Turn" is great for Diana Ross and personal growth and fulfillment, not politics. There is or should be no line for annointments.
I'd like to think that St. Harvey will turn these misguided self-absorbed power hungry hyocrites away one day from entering the ultimate Kingdom, but I know it doesn't work that way. Rather, they will see in their day in this life here on earth that what they have wrought is not progress or accomplishment but cynicism and self interest, not progress for all in the community but a few crumbs for the powers that be and more dysfunction that will in time turn more against their old autocratic ways.
Harvey did not win the first or even the 2nd election; and no doubt, if they are willing, Torie and Luis will have their day, and so will our community, a concept of which these alleged misguided leaders know nothing about.
You don't need me to bless you, you are already blessed. In gratitude and the ongoing struggle,
Brock Evans
__________________________________________________________________
MY LATEST CAMPAIGN
It all started when I was reading the sample ballot for the June 2012 primary election. There were many candidates for the state assembly district where I lived with no incumbent. Under the nonpartisan commission redestricting I saw hope for new candidates in more continguous and empowered districts that made more sense. The other major change was that the top two candidates went on to compete in the general election regardless of party affiliation. This district was likely to vote to send 2 Democrats to the general election in November and I immediately speculated about an establishment-grass roots competition. Sure enough, one candidate had extensive party, establishment and union support and seemed OK, but why did he just move back to the district? Did the powers that be as usual determine who should represent OUT district. Another candidate received my immediate full attention. He was openly gay, progressive, Latino, worked in health care, organized East LA around the No on 8 campaign, volunteered for community based organizations in every neighborhood in THIS district his whole adult life. I voted for him but it wasn't until after the primary that I had time on my hands. He survived the primary to run against the establishment candidate. Shades of or the ghost of (St.) Harvey Milk, here in LA, in MY district. For the first time in years, I was once again making phone calls, walking precincts, meeting likeminded folks, bugging my friends and neighbors, putting up a sign in my window. With some help and a lot of encouragement, the following article was published in the Highland Park, Silverlake/Echo Park, and Eagle Rock editions of the Patch.comThey even published my photo and I was recognized and met a lot of people at the victory party. And then I was commenting on the comments. Of course, like Harvey, the outspent insurgent never wins the first time. But I was back and energized and this newfound maturity did not leave me embittered this time, only proud of a wonderful grass roots campaign with the right message and the right candidate and community support that will only grow in the future.
The Real Deal: Luis Lopez
by Brock S. Evans
I have worked around politics for more than 40 years. But I haven’t volunteered for a candidate in nearly 30 years. When I read about Luis Lopez, running to represent me in Northeast Los Angeles, I was pleased to find such a committed, progressive candidate here in my district.
When I actually met Luis, I was moved to devote my time and get involved with his campaign. I haven't been this committed to a candidate since I worked here in Los Angeles County for Myrlie Evers Williams, the NAACP activist who went on to become the organization’s board chair, and later in San Francisco for Harvey Milk, the small businessman and activist who showed that gay people could build coalitions and win elections in California.
I see in Luis the qualities I trust and want most in good leaders.
First of all, he has shown courage. It’s not just his personal background, the fact that he persevered through the loss of his mom when he was 8 and many sacrifices growing up to get a good education. It’s also that he has taken on this race for Assembly with no one paving the way for him. Luis is big enough to believe he can contribute to improving our state and make sure his constituents benefit in the process. And he has been bold enough to stake his entire campaign on the value of small-dollar contributors, instead of checks from corporations and lobbyists, and the power of his neighbors and our networks here in the community to win against machine politics as usual. When up against candidates backed by party bosses, local leaders with strong ties to their home communities, including Harvey Milk, have often had to run and win campaigns using the same recipe that Luis has.
In Luis, I also see honesty and integrity. These are hard times for California, and it bothers me to hear other candidates talking as if it’s still the go-go 90’s, or even 2006, for that matter. Luis doesn’t sugarcoat the fact that lawmakers in the next sessions in Sacramento are going to have to make cuts. Even if we pass Prop 30 and even if the Democrats achieve a two-thirds majority to approve new revenue, he is adamant about bringing real discipline to state budgeting, restoring voters’ faith in lawmakers, and putting a priority on our long-term investments, like schools and campuses and our public health system, rather than jails or tunnels or flashy projects promoted by powerful interest groups. No lobbyists have their claws into Luis, counting on him to shift money their way or shield them from pain. He is his own person. And when he talks about being able to put the interests of the voters first, not campaign sponsors or machine politics, it rings true.
And Luis has vision. It’s not often these days that I hear anyone talk with passion about the unfinished work at the state level to provide all people access to affordable, high-quality healthcare. But Luis does. And he makes the connection to long-term cost savings and to the fact that better care and access to it both allow and create incentives for better educational outcomes for kids and young adults. Californians don’t learn best when we’re hungry, working three jobs, carrying huge debt, or all of the above. Luis also connects healthcare, a fast-growing sector in Los Angeles, with job growth here and our need to train and retain a high-skilled workforce that includes the caring professions.
Luis foresees a California where we develop more clean energy and stop ransoming our ground water to hydraulic fracking, and where oil companies pay their fair share for extracting wealth from our land. Luis articulates the need for full equality under law as part of the California Dream, whose key ingredients are personal responsibility, smart public investment in the pathways of opportunity, and an active commitment by business, labor, faith groups, and government to a social contract. It’s been years since I’ve heard a state-level candidate describe a moral and political compass as compelling as what’s clearly guiding Luis.
Having trustworthy and capable leaders really matters to me. And it’s partly because I have grown so accustomed to making allowances and compromises in this area that I am so impressed by Luis Lopez. He is an exceptional and special candidate. His campaign has really struck a chord with me. Luis is ready to achieve big things for us. With the renewal of my own and many other volunteers’ faith in the leadership that our own neighborhoods are producing, he has already achieved something significant.
Description:
Lopez is a truly progressive candidate who has devoted his career to public service in THIS district and supported by community leaders throughout, not big money or establishment party interests.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete