FOUR IMPORTANT READS from the LA Times:

1. FINALLY SOMEBODY HAD THE GUTS TO SAY IT: DAVID BREWER NEEDS TO GO

Everybody’s known this for what now seems like ever. But no one would say so publically: LAUSD Superintendant David Brewer is way, way over his head, and has been from the get-go. Now he needs to step down. Here’s the opening of LA Times editorial calling it for what it is.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is not without accomplishment. It has recently seen student test scores improve, and it is on track with a vast, long-term effort to build enough schools for all of its students. But along with much of California, the district is heading into troubled times — largely financial — that threaten its classrooms and students, and that will test its management and educational skills. This is a treacherous moment for a school district that has long operated on the edge of failure, and it demands unimpeachable leadership. In such a moment, the district cannot afford a superintendent who holds the title but isn’t up to the job.

2. PROP 8 STRATEGIES—-BEFORE AND AFTER

The LA Times’ Jessica Garrison writes a smart, thoughtful news story about the evolving nature of the strategies used by the Prop. 8 opponents—then and now. Here’s how it starts:

Leaders of the campaign against Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, raised nearly $40 million and ran a careful, disciplined campaign with messages tested by focus groups and with only a few people authorized to speak to the media.

They lost.

In the week since, California has seen an outpouring of demonstrations ranging from quiet vigils to noisy street protests against Proposition 8, including rallies outside churches and the Mormon temple in Westwood as well as boycotts of some businesses that contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Many of those activities have been organized not by political professionals and established leaders in the gay community, but by young activists working independently on Facebook and MySpace.

The grass-roots activism is a tribute to political organizing in the digital age, in which it is possible to mobilize thousands of people with a few clicks of a mouse. It has generated national attention — and set up a series of Saturday demonstrations that organizers hope will attract tens of thousands of people to city halls throughout California.

But the demonstrations also have raised questions about whether the in-your-face approach will alienate voters
….

Read the rest of this entry »

This Saturday, November 15, the Prop 8 Protests are scheduled to go nationwide.

The largest of the protests is expected to be the Los Angeles march, which begins at 10:30 a.m. at City Hall.

***************************************************************************************************************

This time, word of the march seems to be spreading rapidly. Notices are speeding around Facebook and other venues. (I’m already hearing from actor and writer friends who are going.)

For more LA info, go here.

UPDATE: Taking at least one step in the direction of answering the question, What will elections-centric Blogs Like FiveThirtyEight do now that Obama has won? FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver does an excellent analysis (best one I’ve seen to date), of who voted for an against Prop 8, so that we can stop with this Who’s the Most to Blame? business and get back to solving the problem.

The fury and the hurt continues to grow in response to the passage of Proposition 8, and to the fact that, on the same night that the nation made a historic step away from bigotry, over half of those voting in the State of California opted to take rights away from their fellow Californians, if those Californians happen to be gay or lesbian.

Most recently, however, some members of the state’s black gay and lesbian community–and some blacks generally—are speaking out about what they feel is unfair and corrosive blame being leveled at California’s African American voters—particularly on the part of the media.

Blogger, writer Jasmyne A. Cannick had an Op Ed on the issue in yesterday’s LA Times.

Bloggers sparkymonster and Shanikka over at Daily Kos and Browne at LA Eastside also have posted angrily on the subject.

(I should warn you that some of these posts are a bit over the top. But that isn’t the point.)

It does seem, that if one wants to place blame, a better focus would the Morman Church that behaved like a political PAC and urged its members to both donate money and to go to California to work for the passage of Prop. 8. It is estimated that somewhere between 40 percent and 70 percent of the tens of millions of dollars spent on passing the measure came from donors in the state of Utah.

Most to the point, of course, is how the rights that Prop. 8 took away, might most effectively be restored.

In today’s LA Times, UC Berkeley law school professor and associate dean, Goodwin Liu, outlines the various possible legal considerations at play in the battle to get Proposition 8 tossed out by the courts.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is also quoted this morning as saying the Prop. 8 battle is far from over.

In the meantime, the kind of harm done by this proposition was perfectly and sadly demonstrated by the ten-year-old boy whose two moms were among the 18,000 who got married this year. “Why…?” asked the boy the day after the Tuesday vote when he was talking to a friend of mine who knows his moms.

“Why do all these people want to ruin my family?”

Why indeed?

So tell me again why letting other people get married threatens your marriage?

Proposition 8 is running very, very close right now.

Talk to people you know. Walk up talk to strangers, if need be. Ask them very kindly to do the right thing.

Do not allow the lies and fear—spread by commercials bought with millions of dollars in out-of-state money—to talk our fellow Californians into taking away the right to marry the person one loves from our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters, our friends. Please.

(It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.)

NOTE: THERE’S A VERY SHORT VERSION AT THE END in case you want to print it out.

(Thank you again to the always fabulous, Alan Mittelstaedt, and to my USC J202 students who researched the issues so intelligently and well.)

**************************************************************************************************************

1A High speed rail: YES

Oh, I suppose the opponents and naysayers have a point, in an Eeyore-ish sort of way. But California needs to move itself into the future, transportationally speaking. I want a bullet train. You should want a bullet train. The LA Times wants a bullet train. (Even if the Daily News doesn’t.) Yes on infrastructure. No on prisons. What kind of tomorrow do you want anyway?

2. Humane farms: YES

Prop 2 requires that caged farm animals have enough room to be able to stand up in their pens or cages, turn around—and flap their wings if they happen to have wings. In other words, we can kill ‘em and eat ‘em, but we can’t torture ‘em. It’s pretty much that simple. You’ve no doubt seen all the commercials warning you that hideous things will happen if this proposition passes. Salmonella will run rampant, California will have to get its eggs from Mexico, food prices will skyrocket. And all goodness and light will disappear from the earth. (Yes, I made that last part up. But the rest is claimed by the NO-on-2 TV ads paid for by big agribusiness.)

The facts say otherwise. First of all, confining animals to over-small spaces spreads diseases (and pathogens like salmonella) more easily between the animals, and extreme stress makes creatures additionally disease-prone. In other words, humane treatment of chickens, pigs and veal calves, et al, will make our food safer not the reverse. In terms of price, a California-based poultry economist cited by the Humane Society has figures indicating that eggs will, at most, cost a penny more (per egg). Sure, in this sucky economy, even pennies add up, but unhealthy food is never a bargain.

The LA Times says to vote no, but they’re on the wrong side of this one. My brilliant pal, LA Times columnist and KPCC radio talk show maven, Patt Morrison, who is extremely well informed on these issues, says yes—-as does a slew of other organizations beginning with the Humane Society, the Sierra Club and the California Democratic Party.

The poultry industry, in particular, has had plenty of time to reform itself—as the beef and the veal industries have pretty much already done. But poultry has failed to come into the 21st century. It seems those poultry farmers need a nice firm nudge (or peck), which Prop 2 thoughtfully provides.

3. Children’s Hospitals: YES

Do I really have to explain this? Okay, Children’s hospitals throughout the state are overflowing with seriously ill and injured children, and you will find no serious organized opposition to this proposition. There is a good reason for that.

4. Parental notification: NO

Every few years this thing gets on the ballot and then gets voted down.

For the details, see the write-ups from my USC students here.

Then listen to our state’s daughters and deep-six this puppy.

5. Rehab not prison for certain drug offenders: YES

Our prisons are crowded with nonviolent low-level drug offenders, who often cycle in and out for parole violations, not additional crimes, because they go back in every time they test dirty—or are afraid they’re going to test dirty—on the drug tests mandated by the conditions of their paroles. And we pay the tab for their inability to get off the conveyer belt. Is that really any way to run a railroad?

Prop. 36 is terming out, and this would replace it. No matter what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown say (the latter who should know better), this proposed system is not going to send a plague of criminals running rife through the streets.

We need this initiative. It’ll save us money, and prison beds, and it will keep low level offenders in the community where they have a chance at recovery, not in prison where they are further broken—and then we and their families get to pay the tab for the damage.

The truth is, we need a state commission that can come up with binding sentencing reform, but the stage legislature is too chicken and/or politically hamstrung to authorize such a commission (because of the pressure of certain unions we could mention—cough….CCPOA….cough), so we are left with the proposition process.

(NOTE: I part with my smart USC students on this one, but their intelligent summaries are very much worth reading and, heck, you may find you agree with them, not me.)

UPDATE: WLA commenter, Reg, has just pointed out that Jeanne Woodford has endorsed Prop. 5. Woodford is the former warden of San Quentin, the former director of the California Department of Corrections, and now, post-retirement, the chief of adult probation in S.F.—and as smart as they come on corrections policy. In terms of knowledge and experience of the entire system, there can be no better endorsement.

(The rest after the jump.)

Read the rest of this entry »

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody I know is better informed on all things transportation-related than friend and sometimes WLA guest blogger, Alan Mittelstaedt. So I asked him to give his take on Measure R. He kindly agreed, and you’ll find the result below.

Read. And heed.

Measure R: Flawed, but forgivable – Vote Yes

*******************************************************************************************

Let me see if I have this right: Measure R would place Orwellian restrictions on automobile owners. L.A. County residents would be forced to burn or bury their cars and take public transportation to work the three days a week they aren’t biking or walking. A major intrusion into your life, big, bad Measure R tosses to the side of the road any sense of fairness in government’s role in addressing traffic and air pollution.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

If any of this were true, the opposition coming from county supervisors Gloria Molina and Michael Antonovich, Singleton’s running-on-vapors San Gabriel Valley newspapers and the Bus Riders Union wouldn’t be so petty and shortsighted. Get real, folks. Clogged freeways and streets are a No. 1 threat to our health and sanity, and the measure represents the best chance in a long time to do something about it. In reality, R’s main flaws are lack of ambition and courage and failure to promote a public-transit-only spending plan. Too many road projects http://www.metro.net/measurer/project_index.html are included in a calculated way to make voters everywhere believe their neighborhood somehow will benefit.

But don’t reject Measure R because of these weaknesses. They’re a distraction and prove that R is a product of the political cowards running government at a time when we need visionaries who can plot out a mass transit system and sell it to residents, business owners and state and federal governments – all of whom must pay for it. Our plight demands inspiring leadership reaching across L.A. County’s neighborhoods into the halls of Congress and the state Legislature, but we get Measure R instead.

It’s a worthy start, but R won’t take us to our destination of car-free commuting and healthy lungs for all. All it would do is raise the sales tax by half a penny and collect anywhere from $20 billion to $40 billion over 30 years. The cost to you: about as much as six cupcakes. For $25 a year, you can help the region take small steps to catch up on several decades of lost time when we should have been building a complete network of subways and light-rail systems. Time lost by squabbling among some of the same career politicians who now disagree over whether their communities get a fair share.

Read the rest of this entry »

USC students Kelsey Clark, Steffi Lau, and Maria Niklas wrote about the very confusing Proposition 9, the so-called Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights. (Frankly, I thought they each did a better job in explaining the issue than the talking head who was talking about Prop. 9 on NPR station, KPCC the other day.)

After writing their stories on Prop. 9, both Kelsey and Maria decided they would vote NO on the measure, while Steffi was on the fence. Eventually she decided she would go with a YES vote.

Read what they have to say, and decide what you think.

Read the rest of this entry »

On this proposition, USC students Merdith Deane, Kristy Lucero, and Natasha Yasher all wrote smart explorations of the issue of drug rehab instead of incarceration for certain drug crimes. When they had concluded thier research, Meridith and Kristy decided that the proposition was a good idea in theory but too expensive and possibly poory executed. While Natasha thought it imperfect, but more benificial than not, but worried about the cost during the current economic downturn. So two recommended a NO vote, one recommend a qualified YES.

Here’s their reasoning:

Read the rest of this entry »

LAST WEEK I ASSIGNED some of my smart USC students to each write a 300-word news story explaining one of the propositions that will appear on the California ballot on Tuesday.

Below you’ll find clips from the resulting commentaries, with still more to come tomorrow.

(USC student Holly Villamagna’s assessment of Prop. 11, posted earlier, may be found here.)

ALSO TOMORROW, A FULL LIST OF ENDORSEMENTS.

**************************************************************************************************************

first…PROP. 6

Proposition 6 is a 30-page monster that is arguably the worst thing on the November 4 ballot—even worse, in some ways, than the loathsome Prop. 8 because the social and fiscal razor-blades it contains are so perniciously disguised.

When students, Sarah Eigner, Dina Diaz, and Chelsea Dunlap, researched the issue, they got quickly to the heart of the complicated and deceivingly written proposition (and they did it with out any nudging or cues from me).

Here’s what they wrote:

Read the rest of this entry »