Straining at Gnats... and ACORNs

Republicans' vendetta against ACORN for registering poor people to vote proves beyond any doubt that they are not the fiscally responsible party they pretend to be.

They continue to harass ACORN, which was apparently the victim of a private political sting operation, after reluctantly pretending to investigate Diebold and related scams in 2004, not to mention companies like KBR and Halliburton that have been stealing $billions of taxpayer money in Iraq with contract fraud and featherbedding - Republicans are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

I am also wondering if the Republicans put something in the water in the House, which is supposedly controlled by Democrats who, unbelievably, joined Republicans in voting to pull ACORN's funding and instead waste the money investigating them. For Sacramento, this means less assistance for hapless homeowners facing foreclosure and fraud. Gee thanks.

This is not the first time Democrats have allowed Republican hissy fits to derail due diligence and the greatest good for the greatest number. When wingnuts act out, that's a good time to sit back and make sure you have all the information you need to actually understand the whole situation. It turns out that the undercover movie producer and accomplice are elite young Republicans who will never have to worry about foreclosure happening to them. And it turns out they visited a third of ACORN offices nationwide, and were at times so pushy ACORN staff had to call the cops. I wonder who paid for all their equipment and expenses?

I think the real agenda here is to get ACORN out of the 2010 census, so more poor people can be missed. Republicans have "trust issues." I'll say they do; you can trust them - and Democrats - to care more about power than people.

Republican Health Care Whores

Yesterday on C-SPAN I listened in to a North Carolina town hall revival meeting where Rep. McSomebody revealed himself as being in the health insurance companies' pocket. On key points of misinformation, such as the Palin-manufactured death panels and the spin that our health care is better than Europe's and Canada's, he resolutely agreed with constituents' cranky delusions and general ranting, rather then speaking the truth.

Even more interesting was a wrinkle, new to me, about health care choice being construed as a new right for health insurance corporations to sell insurance across state lines, to people hundreds of miles away who would have even less practical recourse than at present if they got screwed. The mantra of individual choice and competition was invoked numerous times to sell an approach which gives insurance companies all the power to divide and conquer. And we all know that competition will increase choice and lower prices, right?

There were a few voices in the wilderness, people who had come to say they wanted single-payer, or a public option, and generally would appreciate the government sticking up for them in the face of companies who don't hesitate to kick people's policies to the curb just when they are most necessary. Mostly these people were health care workers and sick people. But they got little sympathy from Rep. McWhatever, who is as skilled as most politicians in answering the question he wants to hear rather than the one that's actually been posed.

No Republican who gets lots of contributions from for-profit health insurance corporations and his marching orders from the chamber of commerce is going to admit that when competition is for money, for-profit businesses just want your money.

If we want competition for actual health care and wellness, we won't be getting it from insurance companies' gigolos.

Giant Log in Birthers' Eyes

True-blue Amurricans who see specks in Obama's birthright are overlooking some giant blots in our own.

Assuming that what I learned in school was not a Communist plot, the whole concept of birth certificates was imported to this continent, along with too many Europeans, for the very dubious benefit of the pre-existing population.

So before more people complain that Obama may not have the right to be president, I think we should carefully consider our own right to be here at all.

Gates-gate: Are Cops & Blacks On The Same Planet?

One of the most disturbing things about Sergeant James Crowley is that he has been teaching other cops about racial profiling for five years. Is he teaching them that law enforcement means never having to say you are sorry? And as Wayne Martin asked, "When did it become illegal to be angry at a law enforcement official?"

I would like to know how much anger one can express verbally before being arrested for disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. Like world-famous professors and presidents, cops are accustomed to being heeded. But if they really want to be peace officers, they can't be thinking that gentleness is weakness.

New York State Senator Eric Adams, a retired police captain, seems to understand that law enforcement does mean having to say you are sorry. Constables on patrol regularly confront people to verify that someone is not up to no good. And when it turns out they have accosted law-abiding citizens inaccurately, courtesy suggests that one apologize for the intrusion when it turns out to have been fortunately unnecessary.

So who should apologize? Professor Gates? Probably not, but I'd have to know more about the exact events. Sgt. Crowley? Only if he wants to keep teaching. President Obama? Definitely not. I agree that Sgt. Crowley acted like his prefrontal cortex was on vacation. I'd also like to know what Miss Manners thinks.

We need nonviolent law enforcement. While this may seem like an oxymoron, Gandhi found that his most dependable nonviolent supporters were the Sikh warriors, who were accustomed to confronting physical force. It is possible to use physical force in a nonviolent way, just as it is possible to be violent in ways that are verbal, economic, emotional, etc.

It may not always be simple or easy, but isn't that why we pay cops the big bucks? If they don't have the spiritual stamina to say they are wrong when they are wrong, then they are in the wrong line of work.

Terrorist Deputies

Recently I tuned in to a rerun of the July 14 Board of Supervisors meeting wherein Sheriff McGinness and chorus offered some well-rehearsed propaganda designed to save some deputies' jobs. Apparently somehow someone in the Sheriff's department had miscalculated, and the budget allocation decided in June meant that the Sheriff would have to lay off 70 more deputies than originally believed. So Agenda Item 64 was McGinness, back to ask for more money for these deputies.

McGinness presented an explanation that I found confusing, in part because I understand numbers much much better when they are written down. But after reading his staff report later on, I still felt at least as unclear as most of the supervisors seemed to. Although professing trust and confidence in the Sheriff, this substantial error clearly disturbed them. Several supervisors expressed concern about having incomplete financial information pertaining to this proposed change.

Personally, I would have thought that information about current crime rates and trends would also be relevant, but apparently no one else missed it.

McGinness also stressed that public safety deserves more money because everyone benefits from deputies' work, unlike those special interests like social services that only benefit some people. (But I thought that deputies only patrolled the unincorporated areas, whereas health and welfare spending is county-wide. Go figure.)

In any event, after McGinness had finished his handwaving, the supervisors heard comments from many members of the public who had been assembled and apparently briefed by the Sheriff's PR department, to "give the public a voice." We heard from a number of deputies, past, present and future, as well as their friends and families, who all described a variety of terrible things that would doubtless happen if the extra 70 layoffs were to occur.

Property values will "plummet," all the "monsters" out there, such as sex offenders, parolees, and tent-city "transients" will be preying on Sacramento's most vulnerable citizens. People will buy guns to protect themselves. These layoffs will make the force less representative of the community because young ethnic deputies will go first. More deputies will die because they will be spread too thin. More citizens will die because deputies will be spread too thin and emergency response times will be compromised. Search and rescue operations for lost old folks with Alzheimer's will be gone. Business investment in the community will be diverted to Nevada and Sacramento will be irreparably blighted. Many of these themes were echoed by multiple speakers.

Enthusiastic applause followed each touching expression of concern, despite Chairwoman Susan Peters' request to the audience to refrain, as applause takes time and was also causing some audio feedback. Although such esprit de corps may be good for morale, disrespect towards local leadership calls into question their respect for others who have no authority.

Deputies claimed no special interest of their own, only that they want to protect and serve. They are heartbroken that some of the comrades will fall by the wayside, but down by the budget ax. One guy even compared their pain to the death march on Bataan in World War II. Who knew cops were so emo?

Several solutions were also suggested by many commenters, such as diverting money from the golf course or the airport construction. Unfortunately, none of the suggestions were feasible, as County Executive Terry Schutten explained at Chairwoman Peters' request. Nonetheless, subsequent commenters failed to edit these ideas out of their scripts. After almost two hours, all those who had signed up to speak were heard and applauded.

The bottom line? Be afraid. Be very afraid. That is their message.

After a short discussion, the supervisors asked Schutten to review the June version of the budget and report back on July 28 at 3:30 pm as to what it would take to find another $10 million for these 70 at-risk deputies.

As soon as supervisors seemed to be coming around, McGinness started emphasizing his department's ability to "do a great deal with minimal resources." Still, Supervisor Dickinson did caution him that basic human needs like adequate food are also be defined as safety bysome members of the public, and that the state may yet again raid local funds.

Mulling over all the emoting I heard, and the facts I didn't hear, I can't help wondering about the quality of their criminal investigations. Mysteries and crimes are far more likely to be resolved through dispassionate rational analysis than through the kind of self-serving sentimentality I saw. And if they can't even keep track of their own personnel budget, how well are they keeping track of evidence and other minor details?

Anyway, if you would like to "have a voice" and share your opinion about the balance between public health and public safety with the supervisors, you have until July 28.

Breast-Feeding Under the Influence

According to police, Stacey Anvarinia's recent arrest for breast-feeding was not just because she was drunk, although the other reasons were not reported. Perhaps the nerve-wracking sight of a woman breastfeeding while being investigated is the reason they forgot to actually test her. I am wondering what the cops were under the influence of.

I don't think they were under the influence of concern for babies, otherwise they would be out arresting the management of Nestle's, a corporation which has done more than anyone to malnourish infants by pushing the substandard nutrition of formula onto naive and trusting mothers worldwide. Not to mention the industrial corporations that are responsible for mothers' milk containing trace amounts of various toxic chemicals.

They would be going after bosses who make it hard for women to breastfeed naturally, instead of early weaning or tiresome pumping which really just isn't as nurturing for anyone.

They might even look into the classism of our educational system, whereby poor kids are preselected for failure in underfunded, unsafe and boring schools. Or they could stick up for the rights of all children to be raised with emotional and economic security.

But there's no point in working themselves out of their jobs, after all.

In Memoriam

I've been catching up on what Michael Jackson is all about. I guess I've led a sheltered life, because I didn't even know what the moonwalk was. (Too bad he never met Marcel Marceau.)

His videos offer some insights, like Beat It, a phrase that means both fight and flight, a wonderful paradox given that it's about gangs, kind of like West Side Story. Opponents grasp hands and pull knives at the same time, just as we are always tied to what we resist. It reminded me of a former lover, who wanted me to tie his hands to the bed. I found a similar solution - I tied one of his and one of mine.

But Smooth Criminal ain't smooth, he's scandalous. And Scream totally says how I feel about Harleys and leafblowers.

Michael doesn't care if you're Black or White, which I appreciate. But I have to confess I have trouble understanding all the lyrics, so hopefully he was good enough to explain everything visually too. So I don't know really if Michael cared if he was black or white. I'm not sure he cared if he was male or female, either. As he became whiter, he looked more and more femme.

It's clear that his affinity with, and affection for, children was part of his nature. Children love to play. And the younger they are, the less they care if you are rich and famous. Plus which, the psychic pressure of being that rich and famous must have made kids' indifference to it seem so, so gentle and playful to him.

A lot of people are mourning more than I would have thought. And it's too bad he's gone, though it's easy to think he wasn't having that much fun anymore. No wonder his poor heart gave out. It's so, so sad that friendly touch has become suspected of sex and exploitation. Throwing that baby out with the bathwater is an ongoing social tragedy.

And yes, he did make me cry.