Friday, August 22, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts





The Conservative War on Prisons, The LAPPL Challenges Riordan to a Debate….and Petraeus (Sure. Why not?)

November 14th, 2012 by Celeste Fremon


In brilliant, must read article for Washington Monthly, reporters David Dagan and Steven M. Teles explain how “Right-wing operatives have decided that prisons are a lot like schools: hugely expensive, inefficient, and in need of root-and-branch reform.”

“Is this,” the authors ask, “how progress will happen in a hyper-polarized world?”

Well, perhaps so. Dagan and Teles do a good job of analyzing how government-drowning antitax activists like Grover Norquist are coming together with evangelicals and formerly tough-on-crime conservative advocates—and, in some cases, even (gasp) liberals—to take some solid steps in the direction of real criminal justice reform, with more potentially on the horizon.

Moreover, it is reform that liberal criminal justice advocates have been unable to accomplish on their own, nevermind that facts, common sense and a host of research was on their side.

Here’s how the story opens:

American streets are much safer today than they were thirty years ago, and until recently most conservatives had a simple explanation: more prison beds equal less crime. This argument was a fulcrum of Republican politics for decades, boosting candidates from Richard Nixon to George H. W. Bush and scores more in the states. Once elected, these Republicans (and their Democratic imitators) built prisons on a scale that now exceeds such formidable police states as Russia and Iran, with 3 percent of the American population behind bars or on parole and probation.

Now that crime and the fear of victimization are down, we might expect Republicans to take a victory lap, casting safer streets as a vindication of their hard line. Instead, more and more conservatives are clambering down from the prison ramparts. Take Newt Gingrich, who made a promise of more incarceration an item of his 1994 Contract with America. Seventeen years later, he had changed his tune. “There is an urgent need to address the astronomical growth in the prison population, with its huge costs in dollars and lost human potential,” Gingrich wrote in 2011. “The criminal-justice system is broken, and conservatives must lead the way in fixing it.”

None of Gingrich’s rivals in the vicious Republican presidential primary exploited these statements. If anything, his position is approaching party orthodoxy. The 2012 Republican platform declares, “Prisons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.” What’s more, a rogue’s gallery of conservative crime warriors have joined Gingrich’s call for Americans to rethink their incarceration reflex. They include Ed Meese, Asa Hutchinson, William Bennett—even the now-infamous American Legislative Exchange Council. Most importantly, more than a dozen states have launched serious criminal justice reform efforts in recent years, with conservatives often in the lead.

Skeptics might conclude that conservatives are only rethinking criminal justice because lockups have become too expensive. But whether prison costs too much depends on what you think of incarceration’s benefits. Change is coming to criminal justice because an alliance of evangelicals and libertarians have put those benefits on trial. Discovering that the nation’s prison growth is morally objectionable by their own, conservative standards, they are beginning to attack it—and may succeed where liberals, working the issue on their own, have, so far, failed….

Read the rest.


Last month, former LA Mayor Richard Riordan proposed a ballot measure for the May 2013 election that would change the pension structure for all city employees, including police and firefighters. Without such reform, Riordan says, the city will soon face a cashflow nightmare.

As the LA Weekly’s Hillel Aron described it in his story on the topic:

The Riordan plan does three key things: forces people to contribute far more cash to their own retirement plans; places all future city hires — but not current employees — into a 401(k)-style system mimicking the private sector; and freezes automatic pension increases (now tied to salary increases) if the pension fund investments aren’t doing well.

Naturally the city’s labor unions are dead against the proposed measure, and they have some very valid points—which they fear are being drowned out by the former mayor’s appearances on local talk radio.

And so, on Tuesday afternoon, LAPPL president Tyler Izen challenged Riordan to a debate—-or rather a series of debates—on the pros and cons of the would-be ballot measure, which must have all its signatures gathered by December 7. Here’s a clip from the union’s statement:

“I am challenging Richard Riordan to three debates between now and December 7 because he has yet to offer any independent analysis that supports his wild claims. Riordan has chosen to hide behind carefully orchestrated radio talk show appearances where no challenging or insightful questions are asked, appearances before groups where he knows his ideas won’t be challenged, and well-crafted media releases that lack any pretense of substance,” said Izen.

We hope Riordan accepts.

Certainly some kind of pension reform is needed, but it must be the right plan, not merely something that Dick Riordan jams through because he can, and because it sounds good to a fed-up, and recession-worn public. (By the way, Joe Matthews writes for NBC “5 reasons” that Riordan’s plan won’t work.)


Hey, we’re riveted too. So, with that in mind, three quickie stories you might not have seen yet:


The New Yorker’s Patrick Radden Keefe writes about what happens when the “Surveillance State takes friendly fire.


Over at Wired Magazine’s Threat Level blog, the Threatistas note that post-Petraeus scandal Google has released stats showing an uptick in government requests for data.


Back to the New Yorker again, Andy Borowitz helpfully explains how you can tell whether or not you are involved in the Petraeus scandal. (In case you’re concerned.) For instance, according to Borowitz, these are some questions that a CIA Public Information Officer recommends that you ask yourself:

“Have you ever met David Petraeus? Have you ever received and/or sent shirtless photos of an F.B.I. agent? Have you ever exchanged e-mails with Jill Kelley? Under five thousand pages of e-mails and you’re probably O.K., but anywhere between ten thousand and fifteen thousand pages of e-mails could potentially mean you’re involved in some way….”

Posted in LAFD, LAPD, LAPPL, prison policy, Propositions, Right on Crime | No Comments »

Derailing Antonio’s Misguided Outrage at Firefighters

August 15th, 2009 by


    You want outrage? Try the pedophile protector and the mayor.

Antonio Villaraigosa, showing the wild imagination and creativity too often missing from City Hall, tried hard this week to share his outrage over an L.A. firefighters’ union mailer that contains some low-quality photos of last year’s fatal Metrolink crash.

He even magnified the allegedly offensive photo by three times in a failed effort to prove that an unprincipled union, in a nasty budget fight, lost its moral compass and showed “body parts” of crash victims. But there are no body parts. When magnified, the photo shows a blood-stained sheet covering the body of a Metrolink engineer who died. But that didn’t keep the mayor from using the term “body parts” so many times I thought he was inventorying talent at a local TV station.

“When you see these images – body parts strewn on the ground — they’re absolutely unacceptable,” Villaraigosa told City Hall news conference. “They’re beyond the pale. They’re irresponsible and people should be held accountable for them, it’s as simple as that.”

The mayor was venting. Too bad he lacks a strong staff member who could keep him from going public with his mistaken photo criticism. I understand his frustration at seeing signs posted outside fire stations across the city, blaming his budget-cutting for endangering the public, but doesn’t this guy keep a scrapbook like the rest of us? He should turn to the page that shows similar photos used during last year’s successful lobbying efforts of well-connected Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills for a new hospital wing.

One key difference, of course, doesn’t show up in any photo. Unlike the firefighters’ squabble, the fight over the hospital expansion brought in campaign contributions.

And please don’t take this post as support of the firefighters’ union position in the ongoing negotiations over the city’s tight budget. No one in their right mind believes the city would fail to adequately respond to a disaster as grave as the Metrolink crash that killed 25 people. Most likely, the pampered union doesn’t want to wean its members from outrageous overtime and six-digit salaries.

For more deserving objects of outrage, I suggest that the mayor pick on the bad cardinal, whose Pedophile Protection Program remains in the crosshairs of a grand jury. Or take on Sheriff Lee Baca, who criticized a jury verdict in a deputy-involved Compton shooting and appears to support fatally shooting an armed man in the back.

Or, if he still has that magnifying glass handy, I’d be happy to share my grainy photos shot from a grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.

Posted in Antonio Villaraigosa, LAFD | 9 Comments »

The City Grieves

March 27th, 2008 by Celeste Fremon


LA Times story here, Daily News here, LAFD blog here.

Posted in LAFD | 1 Comment »