“If you don’t vote, don’t complain.” Newark Mayor, Cory Booker.

---

THE NEW YORKER PICKS 15 RACES TO WATCH

All the predictable ones are here. But there are some others you might not have on your radar.

---

WHY IDAHO’S MINNICK/LABRADOR CONGRESSIONAL RACE MIGHT BE A BELLWETHER FOR MUCH OF THE WEST

The cable news networks tend to focus on contests that involve former witchcraft dabbling anti-self pleasurers, persons who favor “2nd Amendment solutions,” and/or candidates who send out equine-related porn to their BFFs via email. (And so does the New Yorker, as we have just seen above.)

But there are other races-–many of them involving democratic incumbents versus tea party candidates who are not actively crazy.

New West’s Audrey Dutton profiles one such race in Idaho, which she maintains is one to watch because it points beyond itself to larger trends. Right now the race is a toss up between a popular Democratic congressman in an extremely conservative state hit hard by economic downturns running against a tea party candidate.

Read about the race. And then watch what happens in Idaho on Tuesday to see what it may tell us.

---

NEW YORK NOVELIST DANA SPIOTTA SEES TEA LEAVES IN POLITICAL YARD SIGNS

A snip from her essay:

“…An election isn’t a yard sign contest,” my mother advised me. Yet I continued to notice more and more Paladino signs. Not only that, his and other Tea Party signs were often planted on public property: on street dividers, on the edges of parks and next to shopping malls.

Obviously, their supporters are excited about the election. I imagined them driving around in the middle of the night sticking up illegal signs, high-five-ing and joyful in their righteous anger. I felt no joy on my side. The lack of enthusiasm on the left has been widely discussed. But the despair about New York is longer and deeper than this election or recession…..

---

CONVICTED FELONS WANT THE RIGHT TO VOTE

Felons get that they have to pay their debts to society, but they still want to participate in the democratic process.

I see no reasons why they shouldn’t.

NPR has the story. Here’s a clip:

A new study by the Sentencing Project shows that some 800,000 people with felony convictions have been given the right to vote over the past decade, thanks to reforms to laws governing eligibility in 23 states. But at least 5.3 million felons of voting age remain disenfranchised.

That number includes nearly 4 million who live in 35 states which deny people — on probation, parole or those who have completed their sentence — voting rights….

---

IF YOU WANT TO FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE AND BE GRATUITOUSLY INSULTED AT THE SAME TIME….

This is the site for you. (What the heck, it made me laugh. It also got my polling place right.)

---

PS: CONGRATS TO THE GIANTS!!!!

---

SO, GO VOTE!

FIRST THE PRINTABLE SHORT FORM

---

STATE OFFICES

GOVERNOR: Jerry Brown (Duh.)
LT. GOVERNOR: Gavin Newsom
SECRETARY OF STATE: Debra Bowen
CONTROLLER: John Chiang
TREASURER: Bill Lockyer
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Kamala Harris, but, um, It’s complicated. (See below)
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Dave Jones

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: . Larry Aceves (with lots of irritation that it’s not reformer, Gloria Romero, but we live with what we’ve got.)

U.S. SENATOR: Barbara Boxer

---

THE BALLOT INITIATIVES

PROP 19: YES
PROP 20: NO (or YES: See Long Form below.)
PROP 21: YES
PROP 22: NO
PROP 23: NO
PROP 24: YES
PROP 25: YES
PROP 26: NO
PROP 27: NO

---

---

THE LONG FORM

THE PROPOSITIONS

---

PROP 19: YES

Look, by this time you’ve likely made up your mind on whether we ought to legalize, regulate and tax pot—or not. I think we should. Couldn’t be clearer on the matter. It’s time. Way past time, actually.

If you believe the reefer madness nonsense that is being lobbed your way by those against 19, that is assuredly your right. We can respectfully disagree.

In 2008, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests (the majority of them young men of color, BTW). That is completely nuts as a use of our law enforcement resources, just for starters.

(And the idea that the Mexican drug cartels favor Prop. 19 is laughable—as Héctor Camín and Jorge Castañeda explain succinctly in this WaPo op ed.)

However, one remaining sticking point for some people is the objection that the LA Times raised regarding the way that the proposition is written. It allows cities and counties to pass their own regulatory structures on top of the state law, should they so desire, which the Times says will lead to legal chaos. But that’s also the case with medical marijuana and somehow the empire hasn’t crumbled.
But don’t believe me. Believe UCI law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky who is, among other things, an expert on the way cities and municipalities function. Chemerinsky thinks Prop. 19 will do just fine. As does attorney and Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, of Sentencing, Law & Policy, who is smarter on the ins and outs of sentencing policy and the like than just about anyone in the country. Berman’s a big Prop 19 proponent.

For me, their analysis of the legal impact of the bill’s language easily trumps that of the LA Times editorial board (or that of the San Francisco Chron, for that matter).

They are merely two of the long list of high profile lawyers and law school profs who urge passage of the measure.

(And, for the record, no, I don’t smoke, or otherwise partake of the stuff. A few decades ago, yes. Now, no. It’s not my thing.)

---

PROP 20: NO (or YES)

Prop 20 is something of a wobbler. I’m voting NO, but don’t think a YES vote would be the worst thing in the world.

Briefly, it would require Congressional districts to be drawn by a citizens’ committee, instead of the State Legislature. We already have such a group set up to handle redistricting for the State Legislature, but it hasn’t met yet. Why don’t we see how they do first, before we start handing the keys to all the rooms in the house to this same committee.

Basically, the idea of removing the power to gerrymander districts from the politicians who stand to benefit is a good idea. But, my vote is to take it a step at a time.

FYI: Nearly all the state’s newspapers are in favor of Prop 20, all the state’s progressive groups are against it. Like I said, a wobbler. Make your own best call. There’s a case to be made for both sides.

---

PROP 21: YES

This initiative would establish a new source of funding for state parks, the budgets of which have been shredded by Governor Schwarzenegger. Everyone registering a vehicle in California (except for commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches) would pay an $18 annual surcharge to fund the parks. In exchange, those with California licenses would get free vehicle admission, parking and day use at the parks.

Those opposed say that we shouldn’t be raising and walling off funds for the parks when there are so many other worthy causes that are getting their budgets cut, and that somehow they will be hurt if this proposition passes. In the abstract, they have a point: as a general rule, cordoning off funds for special issues is a bad idea, especially when we have so many important social issues underfunded, or not funded at all. It complicates budget writing and all that jazz.

Okay fine. But every once in a while the general rule ain’t right. Since those charged with protecting the state parks abrogated what ought to be a sacred duty, the people need to step in.

Here’s the truth: if we fail to protect our state parks—which is what is presently beginning to happen–the consequences of our shortsightedness will last forever. Once that toothpaste is out of the tube, there’s no going back.

Like our National Park system, the California State Parks are treasures held in trust for every resident of the state, regardless of income or social status. The parks belong to all of us and they have to be protected. Period.

Prop 21 provides a surefire and painless way to do it.

A YES vote on Prop 21 is not anything resembling a close call.

---

PROP 22: NO

I agree with the LA Times, and Sheila Kuehl on this issue (among other endorsers who oppose 22).

The cities and counties don’t want certain designated funds raided by the state when the state has budget problems. We get that. And we don’t want it either, under most circumstances.

But here’s the deal: the funds are loans, not grabs, and must be repaid in full within three years. We are in an imperfect budget climate (to radically understate matters). Right now flexibility is of high value.

---

PROP 23: NO

Texas oil companies Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. have put a tankers full of money into this ballot measure—nearly 75 percent of its total budget— in an effort to hold off implementation of California’s landmark AB 32, California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions reduction law. It would suspend the law requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas, and suspend a reduction plan that includes increased use of renewable energy.

If voters approve the proposition, the emissions law would not take effect until unemployment falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year. That has happened just three times during the past three decades, according to California Employment Development Department statistics.

Those same oil companies—which, according to the EPA, have lousy records as major polluters— want to portray AB 32, as a job killer. Don’t believe them. They do not have your and my best interests at heart, nor do they give a damn about the out-of-work residents of this state.

---

PROP 24: YES

As a condition of his signature on the budget last year, Governor Schwarzenegger insisted on a giveaway to certain kinds of corporations on their tax computations. The deal was as follows: Operating losses could be used to reduce taxes for previous years. Multi-state businesses can choose the tax formula that allows them to pay less tax and take the greatest losses and change it every year. This proposition repeals those corporate tax changes.

The LA Times and some of the state’s other papers say we should vote no, that it’s wrong for voters to tinker with budget deals and that repealing the tax deals could cost jobs.

I think they’re wrong.

Look, I too dithered for a while on Prop 24 until I examined the matter more closely.

Here’s how former US Secretary of labor Robert Reich puts it:

“[Prop 24] ends three extraordinarily bad corporate tax giveaways that will not save or create a single job. As a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, I can state emphatically that these narrow tax breaks for large corporations do not stimulate job creation, nor do they figure significantly in corporate decisions to locate in or relocate out of the state. Education, work force and other factors are much more important.”

Yeah. What he said.

---

PROP 25: YES

If passed, this would change the current two-thirds super-majority required to pass a state budget, to a simple majority vote of the legislature—so maybe our squabbling state lawmakers might manage to actually get a freaking budget passed once in a while.

By the way, 47 out of the 50 states allow passage of their budgets on a nice, sensible majority vote, instead of California’s stupid system that means that a quarrelsome minority can hold up a budget indefinitely—hence our current quagmire.

(Oh, and, just to be clear, this would not change the two-thirds super-majority required to increase taxes.)

---

PROP 26: NO

This snake-y little piece of dog poop is being funded by Philip Morris, ExxonMobil, the aforementioned Texas oil companies and other fun groups who do not have our best interests at heart. They want to require a two-thirds before polluters are charged environmental clean up fees, or tobacco, alcohol and other corporations are charged for the cost of treating the harm their products cause to public health—which means those fees and regulations will happen, like never. The corporations will go merrily along doing what they like without fear of reprisal. And the state will be $1 billion poorer, for it, to boot.

Prop 26 is, in many ways, even worse than Prop 23, but it has gotten a lot less publicity. Kick this junky measure to the curb, ASAP.

---

PROP 27: NO

Prop 27 would eliminate the 14 member redistricting commission that was just recently established by a previous ballot proposition (but has yet to actually meet) and give the power to establish Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts back to the state legislators, who—along with their Congressional colleagues—are the exact people who stand to benefit by having that power. (Think fox/hen house.)

The argument for abolishing the citizens commission is that they are not elected thus beholden to nobody. Yeah, yeah, okay. But the state legislators, who have a vested interest in how the districts are drawn, act like they’re beholden to no one and what we have is a state full of gerrymandered districts.

California voters wanted to try out this new method. Let’s do it. If we find we don’t like it, then we can get rid of it after we’ve test driven the thing, not before.

By the way, for a positively kick-ass rundown on the concept of Gerrymandering, along with a description of the genesis of this and Prop. 20, read this series of LA Weekly articles by Annenberg’s Hillel Aron.

---

---

THE CANDIDATES

---

GOVERNOR & US SENATOR

I assume that I don’t need to give another pitch for Brown, or against Whitman or Fiorina.

If you’re leaning in the direction of the two mean mendacious grrllls who hoped to buy themselves an election or two, I’m likely not going to talk you out of it.

So, EGB Jr. as the once and future governor! (Wooo-hoo!)

And Boxer back to the Senate.

---

LT. GOVERNOR

Gavin Newsom is a talented politician who likely has a long political future ahead of him. Lt. Gov is a good place for him to rev his engines and for us to see what he can do with what is, in essence, a do-nothing job.

Plus, if someone had to step up into the governorship, he’s the better choice.

---

CONTROLLER, SECRETARY OF STATE, TREASURER

Both John Chaing and Debra Bowen are smart public servants who showed some serious huevos at times when such things were called for. Chaing was positively heroic as he stood up to the governor when Schwarzenegger was wrongly using state employees’ salaries as a bargaining chip to try to whip the state legislature in line (which didn’t work anyway). Bowen, if you remember, refused to let questionable electronic voting machines be used in California, despite humongous levels of pressure to do so.

Bill Lockyer is another capable guy who has done a fine job (for the most part) as Treasurer during trying times. No reason to change horses right now. We’ve got enough on our collective plates. (Plus his Orange County challenger, Mimi Walters, seems never to have met a conflict of interest that she couldn’t wholeheartedly embrace.)

---

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Neither Larry Aceves nor Tom Torlakson are reformers. They are both biz as usual candidates, which is maddening.

Gloria Romero was the reformer and was widely expected to be in the runoff with Torlakson, the teachers’ unions’ guy. Then the LA Times had some kind of psychotic break right before the June primary and endorsed Larry Aceves, a very nice retired administrator whom nobody had heard of. Most voters didn’t know the difference, and so Aceves won, with union dude Torlakson, coming in second, with Romero the one true in the trenches, smart as a whip, game changer, aced out.

So here we are. Of the two, Aceves is the better choice. Torlakson is anti-charter, anti Race to the top, anti-reform (unless it only involves moving a few of the deck chairs around) anti-anything but what the teachers’ unions want. (And, gee, that’s worked out so well for us these past years.)

Whereas soft spoken Aceves seems to have a more creative outlook—and doesn’t seem altogether anti-reform. Neither is what we really need in California right now. But maybe Aceves will surprise us.

---

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

As for insurance commissioner, Dave Jones has been active in health care reform issues for some time now, where his opponent, Mike Villines, is a newcomer.

Outside of the governor, the insurance commissioner may have a bigger impact on the lives of Californians than any other elected official.

Villines, like Jones is a termed out state legislator. Villines appears, quite honestly, to be a very honorable guy as well. But he’s against Federal health reform, which is a problem.

Both men have show an ability to be independent, but Jones has the stronger track record for this particular job.

Which brings us to…..

---

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both Cooley and Harris have considerable strengths and, unlike a lot of my progressive friends, I actually think Steve Cooley would do fine as AG.

He stood up to the 3-strikes fanatics by using the law appropriately to put the really bad guys away, instead of merely striking people out for nonviolent third offenses—just because the law allowed it. He’s been good on other issues, that are less high profile. Plus, I’ve had a bunch of long conversations with Cooley about the challenges of prisoner reentry and other topics, and happen to simply like the guy.

But he has allowed his office to take stands on certain issues–like the Bruce Lisker case, for example—that are simply unsupportable. Plus, his willingness to uncritically co-sign on every idiotic thing that his new BFF Carmen Trutanich proposes, is a big, big problem.

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is every bit has capable as Cooley is, and will chase after fraudsters and lawbreakers with equal vigor and expertise.

But Harris, unlike Cooley, is of a new breed that I think we need in our prison benighted state. One of her main campaign planks is to address the state’s ghastly recidivism rate.

While Cooley has most of the law enforcement endorsements, a long list of high profile cops who have worked with Harris—like SFPD Chief, and former LAPD Assistant Chief, George Gascon—think a lot of her and have endorsed her.

She’s smart, and she knows the state is desperate for some kind of leadership in the arena of criminal justice. Harris aims to provide it.

I say, give her the chance.

PS: One more thing: Cooley, unlike Jerry Brown, has vowed to defend Prop 8 in court. That not only guarantees an appeal, but by putting the considerable resources of the state of California behind the defense of Prop 8. Not okay.

---

I’ll be putting up elections endorsements late tonight, not to worry.

In the meantime, have a great Sunday and I hope you are able to take advantage of the gorgeous day. (I assuredly intend to do so, myself.)

And HAPPY HALLOWEEN! I saw lots of great costumes last night when out to dinner in downtown LA! (I was happily uncostumed myself.)

Tonight I get to see costumed smaller persons, which is always a good thing.

I’ve got the bowl-full of mini-Milky Ways all ready and by the door. You?

TO THE MEDIA ABOUT THE PERCEIVED “RISKS” OF JON STEWART’S RALLY FOR SANITY: OH SHUT UP AND STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELVES!

A surprising number of media types are going through bouts of preposterously irrational tisk-tisking over the Stewart/Cobert rallies taking place this weekend.

I mean, seriously, guys, WTF???

Here’s what Politico opined on Thursday:

Stewart will navigate two sets of risks Saturday: He will, a handwringing legion of journalists and bloggers worry, cross the once-bright line from commentary to political participation, and find himself stranded, unable to return.

And he could — television industry analysts say — alienate portions of an audience for his show that isn’t as polarized as that of the real cable news shows, with viewers divided starkly left and right.

Right. You wish.

Writers at the Washington Post are in a particular frenzy.

Earlier in the week, the Wa Po’s Carlos Lozada pleaded with Stewart to cancel the rally.

Two days later, the Post’s Op-Ed columnist, Anne Applebaum, went further.

I don’t know about you, but my heart sank when I read about Jon Stewart’s Million Moderate March, planned for the Mall next weekend. My heart sank further when I learned that liberal groups, lacking any better ideas, have decided to take this endeavor seriously.

But that wasn’t enough. WaPo staff writer, Paul Farhi, still had to have his say in a story titled, in all seriousness: Just Who Does Jon Stewart Think He Is?

(Geeze. The Washington Post staff cafeteria must be a slap-happy-romp of a place in which to hang out lately. Would you like a side of mouth-frothing envy with your overcooked Bitterness Burger, sir?)

Ryan Kearney at TBD has a pretty good round-up of all the idiocy—and a decent analysis of what is causing it.

---

PRISON ECONOMICS HELPS FUEL AZ’S SB 1070

This NPR story by Laura Sullivan speaks for itself. Here’s the opening:

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

“The gentleman that’s the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger,” Nichols said. “He’s a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman.”

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

“They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community,” Nichols said, “the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate.”

But Nichols wasn’t buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

“They talked like they didn’t have any doubt they could fill it,” Nichols said.

That’s because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona’s immigration law….

---

LAPD OFFICERS TO BE PULLED OFF STREET AND ASSIGNED JAIL DUTY

It was announced on Thursday that 83 LAPD officers will be reassigned from street duty to instead work at the new and long-vacant Men’s Detention Center, reports the LA Times’ Joel Rubin.

The police union is not pleased and it’s hard not to see their point.

Here’s a clip from their blogpost on the matter:

In 2002, Los Angeles voters approved Proposition Q, a citywide public safety bond measure to fund the construction of 11 new police facilities and the renovation of 12 police stations. One of the facilities, constructed at a cost of $85 million, is the five-floor, 172,000-square-foot Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). Voters who approved Prop Q had a reasonable expectation that upon completion, this state-of-the-art jail would be fully utilized for its intended purpose.

Four years later, the City enacted higher trash fees in order to add 1,000 officers to the LAPD and bring the force’s numbers to 10,000. Again, residents had a reasonable expectation that the money would go toward its intended purpose, the hiring of police officers to provide increased community protection.

So in 2010, where do we stand? The $85 million MDC sits vacant—unused because there simply aren’t enough civilian detention officers in the ranks to staff it. In the meantime, to avoid overtime pay, hundreds of police officers are placed on forced days off instead of filling vacancies in patrols. This happens on a daily basis. At the same time, a drastic reduction in the civilian workforce has resulted in hundreds of sworn officers being taken off the streets and put into offices where they perform administrative and support functions at nearly twice the cost of a civilian employee…..

There’s more, so read on.

---

LA’S DCFS CLOSED CASE ON LITTLE BOY LATER TORTURED IN SAN BERNARDINO

The LA Times Garrett Therolf has turned up yet another case of horrifying incompetence on the part of an LA County social worker.

Read the rest of this entry »

NEW STUDY SHOWS MORE WHITES USE WEED, BUT MORE MANY BLACKS ARE ARRESTED FOR IT

The LA Times has an editorial on the new study that shows that blacks are far more likely to be arrested for pot than whites—even though whites consume the stuff at a much more rapid clip. For instance, in LA blacks are 7 times more likely to be arrested for pot; in Pasadena and Inglewood, 12 times more likely.

The glaring disparity has gotten the NAACP and the National Black Police Association—among others— to support Prop 19.

However, the LAT editorial board harrumphs that it’s still not enough of a reason to pass the measure.

---

IF PROP 19 PASSES, HOW WILL CALIF. LOOK THE DAY AFTER? (LEGALLY SPEAKING)

Julia Dahl of the Crime Report has a snapshot of what post-Prop-19 changes will and won’t take place, should the measure win.

Here’s the opening:

One week from tomorrow, the nation’s most populous state may decriminalize marijuana. Polls indicate that California’s Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, otherwise known as Proposition 19, is supported by between 39 and 44 percent of likely voters.

But even if the proposition becomes law, California’s 338 separate police departments and 58 county sheriffs are likely to have the final word.

Several of the state’s law enforcement authorities, such as Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, have already signaled they will continue to enforce federal laws against possession and cultivation of marijuana—no matter what happens.

“You’re going to have massive confusion,” predicts Rodney Jones, Chief of Police in Fontana, California, a city of 200,000 located 50 miles east of Los Angeles.

Read on.

---

NINTH CIRCUIT REQUIRES AZ TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, ET AL (AGAIN) WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Tuesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated much of Arizona’s 2004 Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

A legal ID will do fine, said the court. Here’s a clip from the Arizona Daily Star:

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

[SNIP]

The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibility.

The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

And, by the way, before anyone starts nattering about the liberality of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the justices sitting on the three-judge panel (and one of the two who voted with the majority) was an Arizona-raised Republican girl named Sandra Day O’Connor.

---

WHAT MEG WHITMAN COULD HAVE DONE WITH THE $140 MILLION—INSTEAD

Steve Lopez has been having much too good a time with this, in case you’ve missed it.

---

SCOTUS IS WA-A-AAAY MORE BIZ-FRIENDLY THAN IN THE PAST, STUDY SAYS

Really? Ya, think? (cough) Citizens United (cough, cough)

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg has the story:

The U.S. Supreme Court is more business-friendly today than it was 25 years ago, according to a study conducted by a group that advocates for environmental safeguards and civil rights.

The study by the Constitutionality Accountability Center in Washington takes issue with comments by Justice Stephen Breyer in a Bloomberg News interview earlier this month. Breyer said business groups aren’t doing any better than they have historically……..

“Justice Breyer’s flat wrong in suggesting that the chamber has always done well before the court,” said Doug Kendall, the Constitutionality Accountability Center’s president. “The Supreme Court’s modern pro-corporate tilt — and particularly its sharp ideological split in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — are relatively new developments, traceable to the court’s current conservative majority.”

By the way, the conservative-leaning justices haven’t given us all the worst of our biz-oriented decisions. (Not that every business-centric decision is bad.) It was the liberal-leaning side of the court that handed us: Kelo v. City of New London. (Look up that fun puppy here, in case you don’t remember.)

---

LA COUNTY TEENAGERS WEIGH IN ON THE ELECTION

LA’s wonderful youth-driven publication, LA Youth, has a number of elections-related articles.

In one article, 15-year-old Aaron Schwartz decides to research both gubernatorial candidates to find out whom he would vote for (if he was old enough to vote). After his examination, he eventually does select a candidate, but finds himself uninspired by either.

When it comes to Prop. 19, in another article called The Lows of Getting High , a formerly-pot smoking teenager (the author withholds her name for reasons of privacy) talks about the negative effect weed had on her life.

---

GREG BOYLE’S TATTOOS ON THE HEART WINS SO CAL INDY BOOKSELLERS AWARD!

The Southern California Independent Booksellers (SCIBA) had their big awards dinner Saturday night and gave out six awards. Father Greg Boyle’s luminous and unforgettable “Tattoos on the Heart” won first in the nonfiction category. (Wooo-hooo! And really, I’d feel that way even if I wasn’t totally partisan.)

Other winners included, the marvelous Aimee Bender for fiction, and my pal David Ulin, as part of a trio who won for Art, Architecture and Photography.

The full list is below:

Children’s Picture Book: “All the World“ by Marla Frazee and Liz Garton Scanlon (Simon & Schuster)

Children’s Novel: “This Book is Not Good for You“ by Psuedonymous Bosch (Little, Brown)

Fiction: “The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake” by Aimee Bender (Doubleday)

T. Jefferson Parker Mystery Award: “The First Rule“ by Robert Crais (Putnam)

Nonfiction: ” Tattoos on the Heart” by Father Gregory Boyle (Free Press)

Glenn Goldman Art, Architecture and Photography Award: “Los Angeles: Portrait of a City” by Jim Heimann, David L. Ulin and Kevin Starr (Taschen)

---

A SERIOUS NOTE ABOUT CARLY FIORINA

All good wishes for very quick healing to Carly Fiorina who was admitted to the hospital Tuesday morning for observation and treatment of an infection related to her reconstructive surgery in July. Fiorina was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2009, and had a double mastectomy as part of her treatment.

I don’t like Fiorina as a candidate, but facing the rigors of the campaign trail this soon after her various surgeries and treatments, ain’t easy. I wish her a speedy recovery.

GEORGE SOROS WILL PUT $$$ INTO PROP 19

Gazillionaire George Soros is about to donate some big bucks to Proposition 19, the pot legalization initiative. He explains why in an op ed that appears in, of all interesting places, the Wall Street Journal. Since it’s the WSJ, Soros leads his reasons with those relating to the fiscal side of the initiative.

Here are some clips:

Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good. The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.

Law enforcement agencies today spend many billions of taxpayer dollars annually trying to enforce this unenforceable prohibition. The roughly 750,000 arrests they make each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana represent more than 40% of all drug arrests.

Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually. It also would reduce the crime, violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and the violations of civil liberties and human rights that occur when large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are subject to arrest. Police could focus on serious crime instead.

[SNIP]

Who most benefits from keeping marijuana illegal? The greatest beneficiaries are the major criminal organizations in Mexico and elsewhere that earn billions of dollars annually from this illicit trade—and who would rapidly lose their competitive advantage if marijuana were a legal commodity. Some claim that they would only move into other illicit enterprises, but they are more likely to be weakened by being deprived of the easy profits they can earn with marijuana.

---

FLORIDA 23-YEAR-OLD CASUALTY OF THE DRUG WAR

This story by Vince Beiser isn’t directly related to Prop 19, but there’s a thin thread of relationship. In any case, it’s upsetting—and worth reading.

Here’s the opening.

She should have been scared. Rachel Hoffman, a slim, pretty redhead freshly graduated from Florida State University, had $13,000 in cash and a police wire in her purse. She was about to make a major buy from two armed drug dealers.

Rachel, 23, had never done anything remotely like this before. She was in her silver Volvo S40, way out in the thickly-wooded outskirts of Tallahassee, following the grey BMW of the two men who were going to sell her a pile of cocaine, Ecstasy, and a gun. But she felt safe. Once the deal went down, all she had to do was say “looks good,” and the dozen-plus cops tailing her would pounce. It would be a thrill, like a real-life episode of one of her favorite shows, DEA.

But what mattered most was that the police had promised that if she did this sting, they wouldn’t prosecute her for the marijuana they’d found in her apartment…..

---

AUTOMATED POLLS SHOW HIGHER PERCENTAGE FOR PROP 19

Or so the YES on Prop 19 folks say of their internal polls, according to FireDogLake:

Yes on Proposition 19 has just released a set of internal numbers for polling they conducted last week, which compared responses given to live interviewers versus automated telephone polling. Interestingly, there is a huge divide between the level of support expressed for Prop 19 with the two methodologies. They find that if an individual is responding only to a computer program, they are much more likely to express support for Prop 19.

In other words, people are more likely to admit their support for weed to a machine (that won’t have a judgment) than to an actual person (who people imagine might have a judgment).

Or so they say.

And earlier LA Times/USC poll showed Prop 19 losing support.

---

ON BEING A DEPUTY IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY

The LA Times Sam Quinones follows a deputy sheriff through the slightly unreal world of law enforcement in Humboldt County:

Fantasy often mixes with reality in the work life of Deputy Sheriff Robert Hamilton of Humboldt County, the center of California’s marijuana outback.

It happened again a few months ago in the isolated coastal resort of Shelter Cove, where Hamilton lives and patrols. The deputy came upon nine young men tending a marijuana plantation….

---

AND ON AN UNRELATED ISSUE…

Turns out it’s not out of policy for the LA County Sheriff’s Department to use department resources to do special investigations for big campaign donors.

Um, really?

The LA Times is as perplexed as I’m guessing the rest of us are about that little policy.

Yes I know those other networks are on onsite too. But Annenberg TV Network is way more fun and more, like, there.

And here’s Neon Tommy’s after rally coverage—the whole package.

An estimated 32,500 people with a 5,000 person overflow attended the rally featuring President Barack Obama at Alumni Park on the USC campus today, according to USC’s Fire Safety and Emergency Planning Specialist Angela DiBenedetto.

Thirty thousand people are expected at USC on Friday to see and hear Barack Obama.

Quite logically the news organization in the best position to cover everything is Annenberg’s Neon Tommy.

And indeed the NT crew has leaped fully into the middle of the opportunity.

Here, for example, is a look at the campus set-up as it was being built.

And here are some thoughts by editor-in-chief Callie Schweitzer about how “the president’s USC rally could be the most crucial stop of the national campaign to hang onto Congress.”

But the big deal will be Friday when NT will be live streaming, have slideshows from the scene, a reporters’ notebook blog that will run all day with crowd reactions and journalist POVs.

And, all will be tweeting, of course. Use the hashtag: #obamaUSC

So if you can’t go to see the president in person, but wish you could, Neon Tommy may be the next most dynamic thing.

---

Photo: Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times

On Sunday the LA Times portrayed Meg Whitman as positively loaded with law enforcement and firefighter endorsements, while at the same time suggesting that Jerry Brown had a few wimpy little public safety endorsements at most.

What’s up with that?

This skewed picture emerged in an “Election 2010″ article, written by reporter Catherine Saillant, about the potential influence of the police and firefighters unions and organizations on the California governor’s race. In the print edition of the paper, the article was titled, “These Allies Could Boost Whitman.”

Here are the first two ‘graphs of the piece:

Meg Whitman has repeatedly said she exempts police and firefighters from her plan to switch state workers from pensions to 401(k)-style retirements because they have dangerous jobs.** But analysts say the GOP gubernatorial nominee’s stance is also a shrewd political move.

Police and firefighter unions hold tremendous power in Sacramento and can use their cash and muscle to help a candidate get elected. They pay for hard-hitting TV ads that play up their role as the guardians of public safety. They turn out at campaign events to hector anyone who proposes to mess with their pay and benefits.

Saillant went on to quote experts who said that the cops, firefighters, and other law enforcement groups are perceived as our heroes. (and rightly so). Thus if Whitman has taken some heat due to her agreement to exempt state law enforcement personnel and firefighters from pension cuts, she was likely making a savvy move because, all the fire and cop unions who now endorse her will prove to be valuable assets by putting money and might behind her. And most importantly, they will lend to her their collective heroic and tough-on public-safety image. (Or words to that effect.)

Then the unions who endorse Whitman were listed: The LAPD union, (LAPPL) and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn., “a union of California Highway Patrol officers, firefighters and other public safety officials.”

Plus, there was a quote from Ron Cottingham, president of the Police Officers Research Assn. of California, “the largest group representing sworn officers,” which was positioned in such a way that most readers would assume that Cottingham’s organization also endorsed Whitman.

Finally, near the very end of the article, Saillant wrote that: “Brown has secured endorsements from other law enforcement groups and a police chiefs group.” That was it. End of story. And since none of those “groups” were deemed important enough to name, one was left to conclude that, whatever the organizations were, they were small potatoes compared to tough-on-crime Meg Whitman’s big, bad (but heroic) endorsements.

---

THERE IS ONLY ONE TEENSY-WEENSY PROBLEM with the article’s depiction of the candidates and their public safety supporters.

It is utterly misleading and…well…..kinda false.

Although both candidates have a reasonable list of public safety endorsements, including Whitman’s endorsement by the LAPPL (which carries a lot of weight in So Cal), when the lists are laid out side by side, one sees quickly that more of the state’s largest law enforcement and fire organizations support……..Jerry Brown.

Ron Cottington’s aforementioned 62,000 member organization, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, supports—not Whitman—but Brown.

The 30,000 member California Firefighters Organization supports Brown with a vengeance.

And the 800 lb. gorilla when it comes to exerting influence on California state politics, the CCPOA—the prison guards’ union—supports Jerry (not-your-father’s-moonbeam-anymore) Brown.

(I can’t actually find any firefighters’ group that endorses Whitman, but maybe I’m missing something.)

Moreover, Brown has performed this trick of getting endorsements without promising pension-reduction exemptions.

Below you will find listed the main dueling public safety endorsements according to the candidate’s own websites. (I left out individual endorsements, like LA County Sheriff Lee Baca and former LAPD Chief Bill Bratton, who also endorse Brown, and the Kern County and Sacramento County sheriffs who endorse Whitman.)

(By the way, I noticed that that Brown only lists his “key” endorsements whereas Whitman lists everyone she once passed on the street who said they were voting for her. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

---

WHITMAN ENDORSEMENTS

Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) - represents the more than 9,900 sworn officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) – represents 7,000 public safety professionals

California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA) – represents more than 3,000 law enforcement officers working in local, state and federal agencies.

California Narcotic Officers’ Association – provides training for 7,000 officer/members

---

BROWN ENDORSEMENTS

California Police Chiefs Association (Cal-Chiefs)
– represents nearly all the police leadership throughout the state.

California Professional Firefighters - represents more than 30,000 firefighters

Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)- represents 62,000 officers and 890 local public safety associations.

California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations (CCLEA) – represents 80,000 officers statewide.

California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) – represents 30,000 correctional peace officers

---

I don’t mean to be critical of Ms. Salliant, whom I assume is a nice person and usually an excellent reporter. But when an election is as close as this one, it would be helpful if the information given to voters by the biggest newspaper in the state was…..you know….correct.

---

**NOTE: Whitman’s campaign got in touch to correctly remind me that she does not guarantee to exempt state public safety workers from all pension reform, but only from her platform’s 401(k) strategy.

---