Prop 8 Overturned - Retrievable Copy of Decision

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco has struck down as unconstitutional California's Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. Want to take a deep dive and read the 136 page decision? It's almost impossible to find a copy, since servers (including the most linked-to Scribd copy) are overloaded. Here's a Scribd copy that's easily downloadable and has only been read by fewer than 100 people as of this writing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35377082/Judge-Overturns-California-s-Proposition-8.

Why Obama Picked Rick

For a good ten minutes, I puzzled over why President-elect Barack Obama would select an anti-gay conservative preacher, Rick Warrant, to give his invocation speech. Several reasons occurred to me.

Perhaps Obama wanted to distance himself from Bill Clinton, who began his presidency on a pro-gay note by loosening restrictions on gays in the military. That didn’t turn out well for Clinton, so Obama may be taking a different tack. Maybe Obama enjoyed the controversy over his last pastor, Jeremiah Wright, so much that he wanted another brouhaha. After all, that contretemps led Obama to give a moving and well-regarded speech on race in America; maybe we’ll get a gay rights speech this time. Or possibly the soon-to-be President wanted to prove that he could pander to conservatives as well as John McCain. Watch out: If Biden gets tired of the vice-presidency, maybe Sarah Palin will get her chance after all.

As awful as these possibilities are, I soon realized that there was a more logical explanation: Obama, Warren, and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich must have crafted a three-way deal! It’s simple, really:

(1) Blago has obviously promised Obama that he’ll appoint whoever Obama wants as Senator, if there’s anyone left who will accept an appointment from the tainted Governor…

(2) Obama, in turn, selected Warren to give the invocation…

(3) … and Warren, for his part, will give Blagojevich a no-show job at his Orange County mega-church. Blago gets to collect his loot, live in Southern California, and take sanctuary in the church if the feds try to haul him off to prison.

This is a smart strategy. It’s sophisticated and elegant, and it sure keeps everyone off balance, liberals and conservatives alike. No elementary quid pro quo for this Administration. Instead, welcome to the era of quid pro quo pro quid. Now that’s change we can believe in.

The Right Way to Sell a Senate Seat

Once again, a politician is taking flac for doing the right thing. Just two months ago, VP candidate Sarah Palin drew unfair criticism for accepting a complimentary makeover. Now Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested by FBI agents, not because his name is hard to spell, but instead for conduct inaccurately alleged by an Elliott Ness soundalike to be “a political corruption crime spree.” Blagojevich himself might benefit from a new haircut, and no doubt will receive a complimentary wardrobe if he ends up in prison for his purported misconduct, but leave that aside.

Instead, take a look at what the Gov is alleged to have done, and it will be easy to see why there’s less than meets the flinty eyes of a humorless prosecutor. We’ll save the main event for last, since the headliner, so to speak, always appears after the opening acts. The recitation here is based on a press release helpfully prepared by the U.S. Attorney’s office, which in turn is based on a short criminal complaint and a long FBI affidavit. The latter, at 76 pages, is almost a novella, and I intend to actively pursue the movie rights. Failing that, I may develop a series for cell phone streaming, a natural medium, since much of the affidavit is based on wiretaps anyway.

But I digress. The chief allegations against the Governor are as follows:

Tollway Project. Blagojevich allegedly sought political contributions totaling $500,000 from a highway contractor, in return for committing additional state money to a tollway project. That can scarcely be illegal—after all, it’s called a “tollway.” Highway contractors should pay tolls just like the rest of us. If anything, the Governor should have required the contractor’s execs to wear toll tags (or EZ Pass, whatever they’re called in Illinois) each time they visited the statehouse, to automate the collection of contributions and shorten lines at the back room doors. Blame the Gov for inefficiency, yes, but don’t charge him with some trumped-up offense.

Children's Memorial Hospital. The Governor is accused of seeking a $50,000 contribution from the CEO of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago and, when the contribution was not forthcoming, discussing with “Deputy Governor A” (in the quant parlance of the affidavit) the feasibility of rescinding the funding. Probably the most unsettling thing here is the possibility that there might be a Deputy Governor B, i.e., that the state of Illinois may have more than one deputy governor. Why a panoply of such officials would be needed is unknown, and bespeaks further inefficiency.

Moving on, note that the contribution allegedly requested was $50,000. The highway contractor, in contrast, was squeezed for ten times as much. Clearly the governor is showing solicitude for children here. As for why they should pay at all, wake up bucko: in the real world, stuff costs. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, even if it’s hospital food. The sooner kids learn that, the better. Blago was simply providing a teachable moment for children too ill to attend school.

By the way, although Blago sounds like a type of asphalt used by highway contractors—which I suppose in a sense it is (see “Tollway Project,” above)—it’s actually the Governor’s nickname, and please don’t confuse it with “blogger,” which is what I am. I’m not the governor of anything, and I left Chicago at age 6, with my morals more or less intact.

Casinos and Horses. This one is more Vegas than Hyde Park: the Gov allegedly sought a contribution in exchange for which he would sign into law a statute that funnels a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry. Who knew that Illinois had either of these industries? Indeed, the Chicago of yore was filled with slaughterhouses—for cattle, I suspect, rather than horses, but any equine in the vicinity would probably have raced out of the city, not around a track. Also a mystery is why casinos should be paying, rather than playing, the ponies. In any case, it’s hard to see how the Governor’s shakedown could have hurt, since both casinos and horse racing were once so thoroughly mobbed up that his actions were more anachronistic than criminal.

Chicago Tribune. Rod (may I call him that?) allegedly threatened to withhold state financial assistance to the Chicago Tribune’s parent company unless the Trib fired editorial board members who editorialized for his impeachment. The assistance in question would have helped the parent company sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field. So what? Criminalizing this conduct is wrong for so many reasons I scarcely know where to start. First of all, why should the state help a company that hasn’t had the good sense to sell stadium naming rights to a company with a more sexy product than chewing gum? There’s probably all too much gum underfoot and under the seats at the stadium anyway. Yuck.

Second, there’s the possibility that the buyer for the Cubbies would have turned out to be the hot-headed Mark Cuban. Ignore the possibility that he might erroneously hire basketball players for the Cubs, which would be a woeful mistake, save for their greater ability to catch fly balls. The real question is, who wants his courtside demeanor imported to another city? Then there’s the matter of Cuban’s recent insider trading indictment. And finally, the possibility that he might not only be named Cuban, but actually be one, in which case a sale to him would violate the embargo so effectively maintained against that island nation.

Third, look at the newspaper’s conduct—it’s highly culpable. How dare they criticize an elected official? It’s baffling that a newspaper, in these Bushian days, could think it had any right to be other than a lapdog. Bad enough that prosecutors see fit to criticize public servants. Do newspapers really have to mix in as well?

Finally, look at Tribune Company itself. Subjected by its still-new overlord, Sam Zell, to a crushing debt load, it was foreseeable that the company would file bankruptcy, as indeed it has. At this rate, there’s a good chance the editors will be fired anyway, along with reporters, copy editors, and other ink-stained wretches who do little that newspaper ad salesmen couldn’t do in their now copious downtime. Tossing out these deadweight personnel, burdened as they are with an inordinate respect for the news, is certainly the operating approach taken by another Tribune property, the LA Times, which sheds editors, publishers, reporters and news sections on an almost monthly basis. Since the Trib editors might well have been fired anyway, the Governor’s little nudge falls under the category of no harm, no foul.

Senate Seat. Finally we come to the main event: Blago allegedly tried to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, whose reasons for resigning remain unclear. While Obama seems likely to fade into obscurity as a result of abandoning a perfectly fine office in the Capitol, Blagojevich’s attempt to amass capital—remember, it’s –al for everything but the building—has brought him publicity of the sort that the former Senator can only dream of (or nightmare of, if there were such a verb, and why isn’t there?).

Now, the Governor sought many buyers for the Senate seat, the affidavit alleges. For instance, Obama and his posse apparently had a candidate in mind, but, said the Governor, “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation.” A perfectly valid objection. As the Governor said, “I've got this thing”—meaning the Senate seat—“and it's fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing. I'm not gonna do it.” Just so. A Senate seat is indeed golden, if a little shopworn, in light of Illinois’ almost 200 years of statehood. As the Governor said, it’s “a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.” Not in Illinois you don’t, no siree Bob. Why cough up a federal bauble for nothing more than a Hallmark “Thank You” card with a DC postmark?

The Governor allegedly went on to say of the seat, “And, and I can always use it”—who couldn’t, after all?—and then to add, damningly “I can parachute me there.” Now, this last is disturbing. That a state’s top elected official could say such thing is unfortunate—to use “me” when “myself” is called for! But this, of course, should have earned him an arrest by the grammar police, not the FBI.

We learn also of Blagojevich’s motivations for possibly parachuting himself through DC’s restricted airspace and into the Senate seat. One was frustration at being “stuck” as governor. Who can blame him for that? State capitals are often cesspools of corruption, and Blagojevich would scarcely want to find himself tarred with that black brush. He allegedly expressed a half-dozen or so other reasons, including a desire to avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature. The desire to stay one step ahead of the law in such fashion is logical and, at the end of the day, if you’re going to get expelled from office, better that it be by the U.S. Senate itself, rather than some downstate, down-market legislature.

Yet another potential transaction involving the Senate seat was a complicated affair that entailed a more or less do-nothing job for the Governor at the Service Employees International Union. Here again, we must invoke the principle of no harm, no foul and the defense of anachronism: since unions are and/or were so enamored of feather bedding, what’s another quasi-job amongst friends?

It goes on and on. One suitor for the Senate seat sent “[a]n emissary,” in the Governor’s words, not to be confused with an “emirate.” The latter would have implied a king’s ransom, or a king’s payoff more precisely, whereas all Blagojevich wanted was $250,000-$300,000 per year.

As I read on, absorbing the details of the alleged sale of the Senate seat, something rankled. All of a sudden it came to me: Blago’s conduct, in this one instance, was indeed criminal. Attempting to sell the Senate seat in this fashion was unlawful. A quick Google search revealed why: The sale violated an Illinois statute, 30 ILCS 605/7(b)(1), governing “[d]isposition of other transferable [state] property by sale”:

[T]he property [shall] be advertised for sale to the highest responsible bidder, stating time, place, and terms of such sale at least 7 days prior to the time of sale and at least once in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county where the property is to be sold.

The Governor’s approach to the transaction failed to comply with two key elements: the sale—i.e., of the Senate seat—was not advertised (although word seems to have gotten around) and there was apparently no attempt to ensure that the bidders were responsible. On the other hand, he presumably did attempt to maximize the bids, and his failure to advertise in a newspaper as described can be excused due to the Trib’s unconscionable conduct described above.

So there’s the indictable offense. It’s no comfort to the U.S. Attorney, because the quoted statute is a state law, not a federal one. Sounds like a job for the Cook County State's Attorney. Unfortunately, the federal court doesn’t seem to see it that way. The Governor was arraigned Tuesday and, in the ultimate insult, the man accused of attempting to sell a Senate seat for hundreds of thousands of dollars was released on a mere $4,500 bail. Is the value of a governor just 1% of that of a senator? So it seems. No wonder Blago wanted out of that job, one way or another.

Wardrobe Malfunction

Yesterday, Sarah Palin inexplicably returned to the topic of her $150,000 makeover, asserting that “Those clothes, they are not my property. …  I'm not taking them with me.”  This set me thinking, and I realized that Palin hasn’t gotten a fair shake on this affair – not from the over-educated blue state media, nor even from the thoughtful conservatives deserting her in droves like glaciers cracking under the stress of global warming. 

You’d expect this sort of abuse from high-brows in the Lower 48, of course.  Look at what just happened to poor Ted Stevens.  The Alaska Senator, whose taste apparently ran more to gas grills than fiery pantsuits, was convicted today by a Washington, DC jury of making false statements on Senate forms.  (As though anyone should care about such trifles.)  Non-Arctic Americans just don’t know how to give Alaska politicians a break.  Sadly, though, Palin’s attackers even include the Anchorage Daily News.  That paper has endorsed Obama, declaring Palin “too risky” a choice, like wearing white after Labor Day.

Anyway, let’s take a closer look at this tempest in a dressing room.  Palin may not know what the VP does, any more than Dan Quayle could spell potato(e), but at least she can see Russia from her state, which is more than Quayle could say.  The Bush doctrine may be foreign to her, but she knows more about speaking in tongues than most of the rest of us ever will, or will ever care to.  You can fault her on the issues, question her intelligence, call her ill-prepared, and point to various other irrelevancies, but when it comes to sartorial policy, Palin’s judgment has been as impeccable as her choice of colors.  Here’s why:

First, she got someone else – the RNC – to pay for the goodies.  In other words, she had the good sense not to waste her own money this way.  Now that’s the sort of steady hand we need on the tiller of government.  That’s the sort of parsimony not seen in Washington since Imelda Marcos came to visit.

Second, Palin helped Obama by soaking up $150,000 that the RNC could better have spent on TV buys and bumper stickers, and by diverting attention from the reasons to elect McCain-Palin, assuming for the sake of argument that there are any.  She helped her opponent.  That’s altruism of the highest order, even if McCain himself might not see it that way.

Third, by flaunting her good fortune – by accepting a makeover that could pay off many people’s mortgages – Palin has set a shining example of the American dream.  Who wouldn’t like to receive a treasure trove of clothing, or perhaps electronic gadgets, or expensive cars?  Pick your pleasure!  It’s all aspirational.  For those less lucky, well, let them eat cake.  Or baked Alaska.  It’s the American way.

Fourth, take note again of Palin’s latest remarks:  “I'm not taking them with me.”  (She meant the clothes, not McCain’s increasingly snippy staffers.)  Again, very sensible.  Only a fool or a Democrat would wear the same designer dress twice.  Scuff those pumps?  Out they go.  You can put expensive lipstick on this hockey mom, but she's not going to lose her common sense.

Fifth – we’re almost done here – it’s important to remember that not all the clothes were for Palin.  Some were for her family, all the way down to her infant son Trig, who can scarcely be expected to buy his own $92 rompers.  That’s Republican family values at their best – when you come into good fortune, make sure the entire family unit benefits.  Palin’s a religious sort, so ask yourself:  what would Jesus do?  It’s a hard question, since the answer is probably not “wear a dress and heels.”  In any case, this is a candidate who not only talks the talk, she walks the walk – and in pricey shoes, no less.

As we know, no good deed goes unpunished, and this story ends tragically:  The McCain apparatus announced over the weekend that much of the clothing has been or will be returned.  Thus, Palin gets the blowback, but not the blouse.  Deprived of this most personal of earmarks, she’s back to blue jeans and, hopefully, back to Juneau in a week as well.  But who knows – if her ticket loses, maybe she’ll snag a spot as a talking head on Fox, as some have speculated.  Then we can look forward to a new Sarah Palin, outfitted at network expense in clothing neither too cheap nor too pricey:  a wardrobe, in other words, that is as fair and balanced as Fox’s own coverage.  You betcha!

Movie Review - Saving Marriage

(Off-topic)

“Saving Marriage” sounds like another name for the No on Prop 8 campaign – the effort to save gay marriage in California from the reactionary forces across the country that are trying to snatch back this right, granted just months ago by the state Supreme Court. 

That’s  a Republican-dominated court, by the way, and the majority opinion was a 121-page scholarly document written by a Republican appointee.  So much for the canard that unthinking, knee-jerk activist judges (impliedly, Democrats) are on a mission to thwart the people’s will.

It’s a mixed time for gay marriage.  On the one hand, the California decision was a stirring victory and, what’s more, Connecticut just became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage, in a state Supreme Court decision released only days ago.  On the other hand, polls show Prop 8 is winning, probably due in part to the huge fundraising advantage the anti-gay forces possess, which allows them to run many more TV ads.  Passage would be an enormous setback.

Into this charged environment comes “Saving Marriage,” which is indeed a movie, not a nom d’campaign.  Thus, it’s not about the California campaign or the Connecticut decision.  Rather, it’s a documentary about the first state that legalized gay marriage – Massachusetts, five years ago.  There too, it was a decision by the state Supreme Court (called the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC, in Massachusetts) that set the ball rolling.  As in California, there was much joy when the decision came down.

But what happened next was nail-biting:  two separate votes in the state legislature, spaced 18 months apart, that could have led to a ballot referendum to undo the SJC decision.  You already know the ending:  the anti-marriage effort failed, and gay marriage remains legal in Massachusetts. 

Yet, there’s significant drama in the film, due to the convoluted legislative procedure, and perhaps even more to the skill of the filmmakers – directors Mike Roth and John Henning, and editor Paula Gauthier.  By following several couples, politicians and activists throughout the process, the filmmakers focus on the very human meaning of what might otherwise be a series of parliamentary procedures.  For its part, the procedural stuff is rendered clearly and with little fuss by minimally-animated diagrams.

So – drama on-screen … and tears in the audience.  Although not a weepie, this is a moving film and an excellent job.  It played film festivals last year and is now in city by city release, courtesy of Regent Releasing.  See it, but skip the popcorn and make a donation to No on 8 instead.  That way, maybe we’ll get to see a sequel – the story of how same-sex marriage in California was saved from the clutches of its opponents.

90 mins., color, 1.33 aspect ratio, digital.  Rated PG-13 for brief strong language.

Cal Prop 2 (farm animal confinement) interview

Learn more about California Proposition 2, regarding cruel confinement of farm animals.  Check out my interview below with a representative from the Yes on 2 campaign:

Can't see the video window?  Click on this link instead:

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/791198.  For more info, see my article Torture in the Henhouse.  And visit LookAtLA.net for more interview shows.

Torture in the Henhouse

(Note – off-topic.)

Online streaming video interview at LookAtLA.net – Yes on Prop 2 – tomorrow, Thu., 10/16, 2:00 pm Pacific / 5:00 pm Eastern.

I like my eggs scrambled.  That’s real comfort food:  hot, tasty, and hard to screw up.  An added bonus is the association with brunch.  Turkey bacon, scrambled eggs, and fresh-squeezed OJ is a great way to start a weekend day at a fun restaurant, surrounded by happy people.

Unfortunately, many of those people wouldn’t be so happy if they knew what the animals went through to get to the table.  I’m not.  Commercial farming often involves confining cattle, pregnant pigs and chickens to tiny cages in which the animals have no room to move.  According to the Yes on Prop 2 campaign, hens live for more than a year in a space smaller than a sheet of letter-size paper.  Then they're killed.  The LA Times reports undercover video released by animal rights activists that shows, in the paper’s words, “egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses.”

Prop 2 would change that in California.  It’s a modest measure, requiring only that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in such a way that they can lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs or wings, and turn around freely.  The primary industry affected is the egg business, since the other two are quite small in California.

The new statute would not require that these animals be free range – but granting farm animals the ability to move about, even while caged, is just basic decency.  The New York Times says as much in a strong editorial, stating that “The fact that such fundamental decencies have to be forced upon factory farming says a lot about its horrors.”  The Times urges a yes vote, and that every state enact such legislation.  I agree.

The LA Times has a different spin.  The editorial starts off strong:

The egg industry is rife with cruelty to animals. Millions of hens in California are kept in cages so small that every natural instinct is thwarted: They cannot perch, walk or spread their wings. On some farms, cages are stacked and hens on the bottom live in waste.

All creatures, even those bred to provide food, deserve to be treated humanely.

Surprisingly, though, the LAT then veers into cost benefit analysis, arguing that producing eggs in non-cage systems results in 25% higher prices to the consumer.  It’s unclear why this is the comparison, since the Act would not prohibit cage systems if the cages are large enough to allow movement.  Such cages would presumably result in a more modest increase in costs.

But leave that aside.  Leave aside also that the cost estimate was produced by researchers at a school, UC Davis, deep in the heart of ag country.  The real issue is whether we’re willing to treat farm animals with no more decency than the dirt they walk on, if they’re allowed to walk at all.  The NYT has an answer to this, and it’s spot on:  “No philosophy can justify this kind of cruelty, not even the philosophy of cheapness.”

For more information, watch my online streaming video interview at LookAtLA.net with a representative of Yes on Prop 2.  It airs tomorrow, Thu., 10/16,at  2:00 pm Pacific / 5:00 pm Eastern.  I invited No on 2 as well, but they never got back to me with availability of a representative.