WEBLOG: Social Justice
Towards racial, gender and sexual equality.
Immigration Questions II
July 17, 2008
The other day I brought up immigration, asking the practical question of how we would identify people who are here without documentation.
Suppose -- just suppose -- the people who advocate harsh treatment of non-citizens are successful in their efforts, and our government starts an effort to locate and deport them. How do we identify who is here without authorization? This is a practical question.One answer that comes up frequently is to deal with the immigration question through employment. The reason people come here is to try to have a better life, which means employment. So this opens up a two-pronged approach. One, attack the undocumented resident problem through the employers, and the other is to help the countries south of us to improve their economies so people are not desperately trying to come here so they can feed their families. (And opening up markets of people who can afford to buy things we make here, by the way.) Meanwhile, employers here are taking advantage of desperate people for their own gain.Americans are not required to "carry papers." We do not have checkpoints, and inside of the country we do not have to prove that we are traveling with proper authorization. We certainly do not have to prove that we are citizens. Many of us could never even locate the documentation necessary to prove citizenship if we were, in fact, required to prove it.
So to approach this problem though employment we ask employers here to check for documentation when hiring. This is a natural time to do this, because people already need to show they are who they say they are when applying for jobs. An employer who hires an undocumented worker is the one committing the crime.
But what happens to families and lives if we cause people working now to be fired? What happens to neighborhoods, businesses, already-eroding housing prices, local tax bases, and all the other things that can be affected if hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of people are suddenly without jobs and forced to move? Perhaps part of the answer to the problem is to freeze any new hiring of people who are not citizens or have resident status, so the problem at least stops getting worse and ever harder to solve. But it is not a good idea for human and economic reason to punish people who are already living and working here.
The current discussion of immigration is so focused on the word "illegal" and that word helps turn human beings into a faceless, criminal "them." But it really is human beings, with families and lives just like everyone else.
Please discuss.
Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)
Immigration Questions
July 15, 2008
I want to ask some questions about how to handle our issue of undocumented immigrants. There is very little disagreement that our borders have become unacceptably porous and that we've got to change the way we secure them. That being said, how we approach solving the problem of the large number of people who are here already? The debate needs to be a practical and rational one rather than emotional and reactive so we can achieve sound and effective solutions.
Let's start by asking some practical questions. Some people use the terminology of "illegal" immigrants because the people in question have overstayed a visa (45%) or even crossed the border without passing through immigration and customs. As a result of this terminology -- "illegal" -- people react more strongly than they might if different words were used or if they had time to consider fully all of the ramifications of this issue.
Suppose -- just suppose -- the people who advocate harsh treatment of non-citizens are successful in their efforts, and our government starts an effort to locate and deport them. How do we identify who is here without authorization? This is a practical question.
Americans are not required to "carry papers." We do not have checkpoints, and inside of the country we do not have to prove that we are traveling with proper authorization. We certainly do not have to prove that we are citizens. Many of us could never even locate the documentation necessary to prove citizenship if we were, in fact, required to prove it.
So if we are going to identify people who have overstayed visas, etc. how do we go about it?
This is a simple and serious question that I hope can be discussed here. Please leave a comment with your ideas.
I’ll deal with the next set of questions in my next post.
Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)
This Week's Kaiser Security Guard Strike and the Bigger Picture
May 10, 2008
This last week I worked with SEIU to help publicize a strike by security guards at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California. (That work was sponsored by SEIU, but this is not a sponsored post.)
The security guards at Kaiser facilities in California work for a company named Inter-Con Security, which then contracts with Kaiser. All other employees at Kaiser are unionized, and Kaiser is a responsible company with their employee relationships. And in other states like Oregon, the Kaiser security guards are unionized. But, for some reason, the security guards in California are not employees of Kaiser and the contractor, Inter-Con, is fighting unionization. In fact they are engaging in tactics that are not legal, including intimidation, interrogation of employees to find out who is trying to form the union, and other anti-union tactics. (It is legal to form a union and supposedly protected by law.) This week the guards went on strike to demand that these illegal tactics stop, and that laws against such tactics be enforced.
There are, of course, bigger issues in any strike and any drive to unionize. What it comes down to is that corporations are able to amass incredible power and wealth, while individuals on their own are not. So when individuals find themselves up against corporations they have little to no ability to stand up against this massed power and concentrated wealth. Employees are just one example of this dilemma. Most employees are not in a situation that makes it possible to ask for fair pay, benefits, sick pay, health insurance, etc.
Over time, though, workers learned that if they can organize into a single unit and act together they are able to fight back. This is known as organized labor, or unions. And by going on strike, shutting down the corporation's ability to bring in the bucks, they gain leverage over the corporation and can improve their situation. This is, in fact, what brought America its middle class -- weekends off, 40-hour workweeks, sick leave, vacations, pensions, raises, reasonable pay, etc. And, in fact, you can see that since the decline of the labor movement many of these benefits have been disappearing. We have been losing pensions and health care and raises, etc.
But it is not just employees who have a difficult time standing up against corporate power. Look at the vast power of the tobacco and oil industries to set the country's priorities. As many as 3-400,000 Americans still die each year from cigarettes that were marketed to children who did not have the maturity to resist while addiction to tobacco is especially strong if it begins at an early age. Yet we are still unable to fight back against the horror this industry inflicts.
And the oil companies and coal are able to fight efforts to reign in their power. We are unable to get our government to fund sufficient alternatives to automobiles, like urban rail systems and other mass transit, or high-speed trains between cities. And alternatives to oil and coal energy generation like solar, wind and research into others are all stymied or severely underfunded even though we know entire, new job-creating industries could be launched.
Our hopes for one-person-one-vote ideas about democracy continue to suffer from the one-dollar-one-vote corporate assault. It is not clear what the eventual outcome of this battle will be.
Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)
Political Suicide II
February 14, 2008
Earlier this week I wrote about how "conventional wisdom" says that politicians acknowledging reality and offering solutions that could actually fix the state's problems is considered "political suicide."
Here is something else that is considered political suicide: Acknowledging that undocumented residents live and work here and are members of our communities. But it is a fact. A lot of people have come across the country's borders and settled in California, especially across the southern border.
Economic conditions have forced people to come here to try to find work. This is something that each of us would do if the situation were reversed. Heck, if the financial crisis that we are reading about in the news continues we might be doing just that very soon.
It is especially dangerous for a candidate to acknowledge that undocumented residents drive on the state's roads and suggest that while we work out solutions to the documentation problem, we test and license them so they can be insured. And so instead there are lots of unlicensed and therefore untrained, untested and uninsured people driving. This endangers all of us. But woe to the politician who actually tries to suggest realistic and workable ways to fix this.
Second to this on the political suicide scale is acknowledging that these undocumented residents are human beings, just like the rest of us.
The challenge here is to find solutions that fit our progressive value system. As progressives, we recognize and celebrate the humanity of every person. We don't ignore reality and we don't condone lawbreaking. We must look for practical, humane, innovative, equitable and democratic approaches to resolving these difficulties. We must always look for progress.
Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1) - TrackBack (1)
Yes, but how do they do it with a straight face?
December 20, 2007
The fact that the U.S. EPA refused to grant California a waiver so we can initiate our own air emissions standards is really no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration ignore science, our legal system, common sense and the Constitution. Whether waterboarding, abstinence only education, refusing to fund "No Child Left Behind", illegally issuing wire taps without court order, or refusing to honor validly issued subpoena from Congress (to name only a very few of this administration's scofflaw attitude), it is the audacity and mendacity that is so astonishing. It makes one wonder whether the right-wing extremist P.R. firms have a class in how to lie with a straight face, perhaps calling it something like "How stupid do we think the American people really are?"
The chutzpah is endless---with the President today in his own press conference exemplifying it with astonishing ease. But the lack of embarassment or apology is what really takes the cake. And when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed that the reason for the waiver denials is that and I quote here: "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." , that really takes the cake.
A clear national solution??? Nothing clear about said solution. Nothing national about it. And in fact, no solution identified either. Besides which, Bush doesn't even believe in global warming. Is it a "national solution" of denial or just plain old deception that this administration is trying to foist on a not-so-unsuspecting public?
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)
If I had a hammer---nostalgia with the great PP&M
September 18, 2007
For those of us who remember the 60's (and yes, there are some of us who lived through them and still remember), it was a night to wax nostalgic and hopeful. Last evening, I had the pleasure of listening to Peter and Paul (two-thirds of the great Peter, Paul & Mary trio) talk and sing about what it has meant for them and still means for them, to sing about justice, freedom and a love between their brothers and sisters all over the land. They were in Santa Barbara, my home town, to receive the prestigious Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.
The award is presented annually to individuals who have "demonstrated courageous leadership in the cause of peace." To put this award in context, some of its prior recipients include: Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Carl Sagan, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Walter Cronkite, Anne and Paul Ehrilich and Daniel Elsberg (among others). Obviously, a pretty impressive group.
While Mary was, unfortunately, back home in Connecticut recovering from back surgery (having won her battle against a virulent form of leukemia as well ), Peter and Paul sang gallantly (clearly missing that magnificent Mary Travers sound). They talked of their life-long commitment to peace, social justice and community well-being.
In addition to those of us who remember them with full heads of hair, there were 120 young people in the audience---primarily college students, but some high school students who were selected as the next best hope to restore a sense of commitment to the principles that moved so many of us during our college years back when the Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles were raging in this country.
In that earlier era,we sang and danced to the Movement for political and social justice, peace in our time, brotherly and sisterly love and respect. We hoped for a better world that was comprised of these things, not material things. We dreamed about justice and goodness and love and kindness. The notion of dreaming for Versace, BMW's, 10,000 square foot mansions and diamonds were nowhere on our radar-screens or desires. We wanted peace, and a more just world for ourselves and all humankind.
It brought tears to the eyes of many of us as Peter Yarrow implored the youngsters in the audience to pursue these goals as our next generation of leaders. He and Paul (actually Noel Paul Stookey) spoke eloquently about these causes and their hopes that we can, yet again, regain our footing by pursuing a kinder, more peaceful planet.
Although partially immersed in the music and nostalgia, I couldn't help asking: "What has happened in our nation that we see our youngsters dancing to gangsta rap and other 'music' that glorifies killing and objectification of women? Why are our youngster's heroes packing heat along with their ostentatious gold and diamond jewelry? How is it that the nation's heroes today do not call for social justice or self-sacrifice or human kindness? Rather, they are admired and even worshiped for the number of cars, or girl-friends or houses they own.
Where are the young people crying out for social justice or marching against this illegal and hopelessly failed war? Why are we and they not calling for accountability by a White House that believes it is above the law? Why are we not challenging Bush and Chaney for their corrupt and destructive management of our environment, their criminal indifference to the poor who are living on the streets or in gang-infested communities where neither they nor their children are safe from violence? Where is the public outcry against corporate greed and irresponsibility in the pursuit of greater and greater wealth, to the detriment to our own workers?
Where are we on all this, Peter and Paul ask? We of the so-called "peace generation' demanding social justice, peace and the freedom to think and be who we are and want to become. We HAVE the hammer, we ARE the hammer....of justice, of freedom of love between our brothers and our sisters.......... We are at a cross-roads in our nation's history and in our own sense of purpose. There should be little doubt: It's time to bring that hammer back.
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)
Women's Equality Day- How far have we come?
August 25, 2007
In celebration of Women's Equality Day this Sunday, Speak Out California has asked the state Chair of one of Calilfornia's most influential Women's groups to share the goals and work of her organization. The National Women's Political Committee (NWPC) is a non-partisan organization dedicated to electing women nationwide who share its vision. Celeste Weingard, its current state president, has provided this entry in honor of the 87th anniversary of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment giving women the right to vote after a 75 year battle.
Although we've seen women make great strides, there is still much to be accomplished to achieve parity in all fields of endeavor. Until we see an equal number of women in public office (and one finally as Commander in Chief), women reaching pay equity, equal opportunity and respect in the workforce, full control over their reproductive decisions and equal partnerships at home, there is still much work left to do.
While this is no time to be complacent, with the US Supreme Court systematically working to undermine women's hard-fought gains, it is still a time to acknowledge that women are making strides in the battle for equal rights. We here at Speak Out California and all progressives in California, share in that celebration.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
Celebrating Women's Equality through Workforce Justice
August 23, 2007
Now that the budget impasse is over (we'll have more to say on that subject in this coming week's update,"While California Dreams" ),we are focusing on Women's Equality Day. This Sunday, August 26th marks the 87th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave women the right to vote after a 75 year struggle. There are many ways to mark the occasion. In California, there are at least two such ways we can ensure that victims of employment discrimination continue to have the opportunity to seek redress in the courts. For that to happen, our legislature should pass Assemblymember Julia Brownley's AB 435 and Assemblymember Dave Jones' AB 437 Both of these measures are pending in the California State Senate.
Brownley's bill, AB 435, specifically extends the statute of limitiations within which women can file suits for gender-based wage discrimination. It requires that all employers maintain their records of wages, wage rates, job classifications and other terms and conditions of employment for five years, and extends the statute of limitations for a civil action to collect back wages to four years, or, in the case of willful misconduct, to five years. The current statute of limitations is two years, unless the violation is willful in which case it is three years.
The Jones bill, AB 437 is necessary because the current US Supreme Court has demonstrated a commitment to overturn, and thus destroy, many hard-fought gains for women, minorities and other "protected classes" of people in this country. One such effort occurred in May of 2007 when the Court voted, by a 5-4 majority, to overturn decades of precedent in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In doing so, the Supreme Court severely limited workers' ability to bring pay discrimination claims against employers who break the hard-fought laws prohibiting discriminatory compensation practices on the basis of gender, race or other prohibited criteria.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
It's time for Civil Unions, at the least
August 16, 2007
At this point in the budget stalemate, to talk about the budget standoff during recess is almost like watching maple syrup run in winter. Fortunately, at least one branch of government is alive and functioning. Tomorrow, August 17, 2007, is the deadline for filing written briefs to the California Supreme Court, which will then schedule oral arguments on same sex marriage rights in California sometime next year.
We asked Speak Out California Board Member and former Assemblymember, Jackie Goldberg, to update us on what this means for the gay and lesbian community. As a leader in the fight to advance the rights of same-sex couples, Jackie talks a little about the background of her landmark legislation, AB 205, and where the question of equality for gay and lesbian couples has taken us. Here's what she has to say:
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
The Big Corporate Bullies Are At It Again
July 17, 2007
The Big Corporate Bullies are at it again! Just when we thought they'd be embarassed and hiding from their latest shenanigans---pawning off bad medicine (think VIOXX) or seeing their Chinese competitors getting caught trying to sneak tainted pet food, toothpaste and fish into the U.S., they're back themselves trying to slam the courthouse doors shut so they can't be prosecuted for their own often dangerous antics.
What is it now? It's a new initiative they've just filed with the California Attorney General's office which will allow them to avoid accountability when they get caught doing things like discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, gender, age or disability. If this initiative makes it to the ballot and passes, they'll be able to get away with refusing to pay their workers for their earned pay, be passing off known damaged and dangerous products, illegally pollute our air and water with inpugnity. The list goes on and on.
How are these profiteers planning their next attack on protecting the public? They're staking out an initiative which will all but end class action lawsuits in the state of California by making them so hard and expensive for the little guy to bring to court, that they'll all but vanish. Using Bush-like double-speak to hide their true identity, these greedy CEO's and corporate polluters go by the totally misleading title of " Civil Justice Association " otherwise known as C-JAC. Like Bush's cronies, they're anything but seeking justice---it's just more and more about their profits and the public be damned.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (2)
Speaking plainly
July 05, 2007
Recently Governor Schwarzenegger rekindled the English-only debate while speaking to a group of Spanish-language news-media. In his remarks, he suggested that the Spanish-speaking community turn off those very T.V. stations hosting him and focus on listening to English only networks and reading English language newspapers. While pretty gutsy to challenge the reason for being of the group tho which you've been invited to speak, Schwarzenegger's propensity for indelicately putting his foot in his mouth on the controversial English vs. Spanish debate stirs up strong emotions on all sides of the issue. Nonetheless, it IS a discussion worth having as it tends to divide us in ways that make it difficult, if not impossible, to unite around the things that we have in common.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (3)
Has the U.S.Supreme Court officially reinstated racism in our schools?
July 02, 2007
This past week has been a woefully sorry one for the rights of the American people. The neocons have gained total control of the Supreme Court and are gleefully and unquestionably overturning the hard-fought gains of the past seventy-plus years. Many of us saw this coming but can only wish, sadly, that we had been wrong.
This court has thrown judicial precedent out the window. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito obviously lied about their commitment to it when they testified before the Senate of the United States, but it seems lying and cheating and commuting sentences of convicted criminals is all within the Bush playbook. Such arrogance now extends to Bush's court and seems to continue unabated. This past week it was civil rights, consumer rights and first-amendment rights of individuals all paying the price of this lawless and reckless administration's blind allegiance to a corporate ideology. But the most stunning of all is the rejection of one of the pillars of our society over the past 50 years---that segregation in education is, as a matter of fact and law, unequal. Not anymore.
We asked Speak Out California's own Jackie Goldberg to take a look at the right-wing spin on this decision---that we don't need such legal protections any longer; that Brown v. Board of Education is passe and irrelevent to today's world and that destroying its mandate is not a big deal. Of course it's a big deal and Jackie pulls no punches in dissecting the neocon attempt to downplay the significance of this offensive and dishonest opinion by the Court.Here is her response to an opinion piece that ran last week in the New York Times by one Juan Williams:
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
UCSB Student Detained After Homeland Security Interrogated Her Roommate
May 31, 2007
Last Thursday, at about 5:30 in the morning, agents from the Department of Homeland Security visited the apartment of some UCSB students. They interrogated a graduate student -- the target of the pre-dawn raid -- and compelled her to produce documents proving her legal immigration status. The federal agents also asked if anyone else in the apartment was an immigrant. Presumably frightened at the early morning intrusion and eager to comply with the agents' requests, the graduate student's roommate volunteered that she, too, was not born in the United States. Probably confident that she was doing the right thing, the roommate -- who is an undergraduate student at UCSB -- looked for her documentation but was apparently unable to find enough proof to satisfy the agents. She was arrested on the spot. She's currently in a detention facility in Ventura.
I have just been informed that the detained woman is a student in the class I am teaching this quarter. I am horrified. This student has visited me in office hours. She's almost always at lecture, and she has been a frequent contributor to the class discussion. I cannot believe that this is the reason that she's missed lecture the past few days.
Ironically, this week the class will talk about immigration policy in the United States, but I've been notified by the Associate Dean that this student is likely to miss class since she's in an immigration detention facility. I'm told that university counsel is working with the student's family and their legal representative and they hope to secure a quick release for the student.
I wonder how often this kind of thing happens. I obviously don't know all the facts, but from what I do know, the interrogation of these students seems utterly ridiculous. Any questions as to the status of the graduate student targeted for suspicion surely could have been answered in less intrusive ways than an unannounced, pre-dawn interrogation at her apartment. And what made the Department of Homeland Security think that these students, who study sociology and religion, would be some kind of threat deserving of this kind of rough treatment in the first place? Why did they decide that my student, who apparently couldn't find her documents on the spot in the early morning hours, needed to be arrested right then and there? Why not just come back later to check on her, or require that she report to an immigration office within 48 hours or something like that? The immediate arrest and detention appears to me to be totally unwarranted.
I've been an "immigrant" myself when I lived in Japan, and I'm not sure that if agents came storming into my room in the early morning that I'd be able to produce my passport and all my documents fast enough to satisfy them. Thankfully, I was an immigrant in a country that didn't conduct any raids on me. Unfortunately, these students do live in a country where we raid people's homes, asking them to prove that they're legal.
I'm not just horrified by this incident, but I'm also embarrassed. I'm embarrassed as an American that we've sunk to this level in our quest for "securing the borders." How sad.
Posted by Erik Love - Comments (0)
Liveblogging TALC
March 24, 2007
I'm at the High Speed Rail session at the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition conference in Oakland today, where my laptop just stepped up to play this great video that the High Speed Rail Authority has put together:
This is a great conference - almost 400 people, and with a strong social justice focus along with the expected environmental one. This is the kind of citizen-led event that flies right in the face of the "California is ungovernable" argument.
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)
Ideas and consequences: the case for interdependence
March 20, 2007
Over at StreetProphets, PastorDan asks "Who is My Neighbor?" in relation to the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids that have been happening all over the country - including many in California. Latina Lista broke some great coverage of the "privatized detention facilities" (maybe the three scariest words in the American lexicon right now) that families broken up by the raids are being placed in.
PastorDan's post includes a treatment of how birthright citizenship challenges the authoritarian familial structures favored by conservatives - and why they want that law changed. The whole article, and a lot of the pieces linked from it, are very much worth a read. But where it really gets interesting is this:
MORE »
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)
Celebrating great leadership
February 16, 2007
On Monday, February 19th, California and the nation give working people the day off, ostensibly to reflect upon and honor two great American leaders- George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. In the context of the present day, it is almost ironic as we look at the greatest visionaries and leaders who lived so long ago and must consider what we have in our country today. From the greatest to arguably the worst in our history, with a little greatness but much mediocrity in-between. Washington to Bush? Heavens, how could we fall so far?
This was a question I posed directly to Doris Kearns Goodwin who happened to be speaking at UC Santa Barbara last week. She was speaking, as part of her national tour, on her insightful and inspiring novel,"Team of Rivals", about Lincoln and his greatness as a leader. In this historical novel she talks about the qualities of leadership and compassion Lincoln brought to his position as leader of a nation and how he was able to bring out the best in those whose guidance and wisdom he sought while dealing with, arguably, the most challenging threat to the survival of America- the Civil War.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
Roe v. Wade- What it means today
January 23, 2007
Speak Out California asked Incoming Chair of the Legislative Women's Caucus, Assemblymember Patty Berg, to share with us her thoughts on the significance of Roe v. Wade. Assemblymember Berg represents the first Assembly District. She is a long-time advocate for women's health and the author of last session's Compassionate Choice measure that would allow dying individuals to do so with respect and control over this most personal choice. She takes the gavel for her one year term from the current Chair,Senator Christine Kehoe at the end of this month.
As we contemplate the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is worth
remembering that this landmark ruling is about so much more than
reproductive freedom. In a way, the mechanics of reproduction are the
least important part of what the ruling represents. The crucial thing to
remember, the thing worth celebrating, is the principle articulated in Roe is
that women do not need to seek permission or approval to exercise control
and freedom over their own bodies, and, thus, take control over their own
destinies.
For young women today, it may be hard to imagine why we needed a court
ruling to make this clear. And, really, in a way it is wonderful that
they may not instinctively understand the full import of this change. It is
wonderful because it means young women are growing up in a freer
and better nation than the one inhabited by their mothers and grandmothers.
I believe it is unfortunate and misguided when opponents talk about Roe v.
Wade as a pro-abortion ruling. They completely miss the reality that the
ruling represents a pro-woman ruling. And perhaps it's time that we
move beyond even that somewhat limited construct to appreciate Roe as a
pro-individual ruling. Clearly Roe stands for the proposition that certain
rights cannot be curtailed by the state.
As we are celebrating the universal truths inherent in this ruling, we
still have to protect the very specific details of it. We must always
resist any efforts that would turn back the clock and force women
to again take desperate measures when facing an unwanted pregnancy.
Thousands of women died during the era of illegal abortions and we cannot let
this become the reality of our country's policies ever again.
I, like many of you, will always defend Roe v. Wade
both for the specific rights it expresses, and the universal
rights of freedom and privacy on which it is based.
We must always ensure that women can make their personal choice and that
they have the resources needed to make that decision. At the same time,
we need sensible policies in place for women to protect against unwanted
pregnancy including increasing the availability
of contraception in our nation and the world. We must fully
fund family planning services and provide them for all women.
Young women, in particular, should also be educated about their bodies.
I helped develop a K-12 curriculum in Humboldt County to do this very
thing. Empowering young women to make the right choices is the most
powerful tool we can give them. And the most powerful message for women
and men should always be that every child be a wanted and planned for
child.
And that is the lasting effect of Roe v. Wade: empowerment of the
individual. And for that, I am so grateful to Roe v. Wade.
Assemblywoman Patty Berg
Incoming Chair of the Legislative Women's Caucus
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
Roe v Wade- reproductive freedom 34 years later
January 20, 2007
This is the first of a two-part series on the critically important civil rights ruling that has allowed women to realize our right to freedom and privacy in our country. Because of the decision in Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22nd, 1973, women have been able to control when and with whom to bear a child. In today's article, we will focus primarily on the history of Roe and its erosion over the past 34 years, led by an ever-right turning Supreme Court, culminating in the Bush court that exists today.
Monday, January 22nd marks the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade which has been for generations of women our Emancipation Proclamation. Under the historic Supreme Court ruling in 1973 women now have a constitutionally protected right, under the umbrella of the rights of liberty and privacy, to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The Court said that the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"(Roe v. Wade, 1973). To reach this conclusion, the court drew on a series of case law that established that the government does not have the right to interfere with personal decisions regarding birth-control, procreation and other aspects of marriage and family life.
Instead of ending the debate, however, this assertion and confirmation of women having the freedom and right to decide our reproductive destiny became the flash-point for a political movement that, hopefully, is losing its political influence. It is, of course, naive and foolish to think that Roe will no longer be threatened and is not at risk in the U.S. Supreme Court or various states in our country. To the contrary. With the spineless response of the United States Senate to the appointment of Samuel Alito (leaving John Roberts and his confirmation as the Chief Justice out of the equation just for purposes of discussion), we will see an already threatened Roe further undermined within the next few months or years---absent a miracle). Without so much as a public commitment to preserving Roe, Alito and the neo-conservative judges who have been trying to overturn Roe since their elevation to the highest court in the land---led by Anton Scalia with Clarence Thomas in tow-- may now have that opportunity. Of course, the Court won't admit it's intention to do just that, but after the Casey v. Pennsylvania decision in 1992, Roe is pretty much a shell of its former self. Under that ruling, numerous hurdles have been imposed on women, thus reducing accessibility to abortions, primarily for our neediest and most under-served women.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
The impending Schwarzenegger health care disaster
January 07, 2007
The big news this week is going to be the release of the Governor's health care plan. Ordinarily, giving the Governor a shot and seeing what he comes up with would be the right thing to do, but you read it here first: this is going to be an unmitigated disaster.
This is a complex topic, but from my perspective there are two simple principles that any health care plan has to adhere to to have any hope of success. One is easy, and one is difficult:
First, get employers out of the loop. This should be the easy one: there isn't a single employer in the United States that honestly wants to be in whatever business they are in AND in the health care provider business. This system barely made sense when it first started, and given the changes that have happened in the economy since then, it makes no sense whatsoever now.
There are two primary sources of political capital that are going to power reform in this area: the very high level of ambient citizen disgust, and - if someone makes the case to them - small and large businesses whose competetiveness is being harmed by the current system. Every last drop of political capital from both sources is going to be necessary to put the second and much more difficult principle into effect, which is:
Second, housebreak the insurance companies. They may need to be removed from the system entirely. It's possible that any for-profit entity where providing care is a cost subtracted from the bottom line is simply never going to successfully provide care.
But maybe they can. I can imagine a system where cleanly regulated insurance companies do add value, by helping contain costs both on the demand side (through promoting wellness) and on the supply side (by being a countervailing power to the service providers) And given the political reality of where we're at, making them go away completely isn't going to happen soon. So regulating them, giving the marketplace some basic ground rules like stopping the cherrypicking of healthy customers, would be a great start.
Why the Governor is structurally incapable of getting this right is on the flip...
MORE »
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)
The Golden Dream of the Golden State
December 10, 2006
There is one immutable fact here in California: There is no place like it on the planet.
Although there are many reasons why we live here--the weather, opportunity, our value of hard work and hard play,among so many others, California is very much a state of mind as well. The California Dream embodies the belief that life is a series of endless and limitless possibility which is why California is an amalgam of the world's greatest optimists, dreamers, fools and risk-takers. It is this mindset that makes us so attractive to those who come here and yet, it is that very same willingness to experiment that has created such challenges and instability in the political structure we have today.
We took the model of American Democracy in the early 20th century and added the Initiative and Referendum to our electoral system to take big money and corporate influence out of the legislative and decision-making process.
We elect our judges, even though we know so little about them.
We created Prop 13---which has significantly impacted the ability of government to function.
We have advanced the status of minorities,workers and women through first-in-the nation legislation in civil and employee rights.
We established what was the best and largest public higher education system in the country.
We created term-limits that have de-stabilized our legislative process.
While at the same time, California is home to people from all parts of the globe who speak every conceivable language and follow a diversity of religious and cultural practices that require us to be open-minded and tolerant of our differences and individuality.
We honor and appreciate hard work, enterprise and originality and we have a deep sense that today's failure may be tomorrow's success--and vice versa. To students of California's history like Kevin Starr, "California is the state that invents the future" and thus it is no surprise that the public's opinion of our future can turn from glum to rosy almost overnight.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)
Flashreport freedom smackdown
July 17, 2006
I'm in the process of reading George Lakoff's latest, Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea. It's great, and obviously something I've been thinking about a lot too. I'm only about a third of the way through, but so far Lakoff is taking a much different approach to understanding the conservative notion of freedom than I have. He's either being more charitable or more nuanced, or he's just flat out wrong.
My take on conservative freedom is that it all pretty much boils down to property rights, and Russell Kirk had it about right when he put it seventh out of ten and after a bunch of stuff about defending the moral order. This is what is behind the endless bellyaching about taxes we get from the conservative punditry: It's becauase they're just not really into any kind of freedom beyond that, whether you describe it as substantial freedom or FDR's four freedoms or cognitive liberty or whatever. And the reason the current occupant of the White House talks about it so much is pure Orwell: it's a pretty word and it sounds nice in speeches and hopefully no one will notice what a shallow mockery they're making of the concept in their actual policies...
MORE »
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (5)
Another blunder in the misguided War on Drugs
July 02, 2006
Margaret Dooley of the Drug Policy Alliance has prepared the following piece for Speak Out California in response to the demand by Gov. Schwarzenegger that incarceration be included as part of the Prop. 36 funding in this year's budget. As you will see, the action by the Legislature in capitulating to the Governor's continued bullying not only threatens the integrity of the work being done in the fight against drug addiction, it has serious constitutional implications as well.
The Drug Policy Alliance has announced that it will file suit to challenge the legislation and we'll be following the progress of that litigation as it proceeds through the courts. Given that this Governor always says he follows the
will of the people, it is ironic and very Bush-like that he has insisted the will of the people be ignored when it doesn't suit his purposes. Looks like another lawsuit of the People vs. the Governor. I suspect we'll be seeing many more of these to come:
The Legislative Abandonment of Prop. 36 And California Voters
By Margaret Dooley
In a single vote this week, our state Legislature turned its back on the people of California. Our representatives passed a bill late Tuesday night that, if signed by the Governor, would not only override Prop. 36, the treatment-instead-of-incarceration law passed by 61 percent of voters in 2000, but would undermine the entire initiative process in California.
The bill passed Tuesday, SB 1137, would alter Prop. 36 to exclude from the program many nonviolent drug offenders (many of whom would instead receive jail or prison terms) and allow the incarceration of people engaged in treatment. Prop. 36 currently protects people in treatment so that they get a real chance at recovery before they can be removed from the program and, if a judge orders, incarcerated.
Thanks to in-depth analyses by University of California at Los Angeles scientists, there is copious evidence that the program is working wonders just as it is. In just five years, over 60,000 Californians have graduated from Prop. 36 treatment and taxpayers have saved $1.3 billion. At the same time, public support of Prop. 36 has surpassed 70 percent, according to a 2004 Field Research Corporation poll.
MORE »
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)
Bipartisanship and compassion create results
June 23, 2006
In a political world so fractured by the strangle-hold of right wing extremism on government and the mainstream media, it is heart-warming and even encouraging when politicians get together and act like statespeople, actually giving a damn about the people they have been elected to represent. Such was the case recently when a group of legislators, united by the experience of developmental disability within their own families, pulled together for the betterment of an entire community.
The group, recently formed and calling themselved the "Family Caucus" is comprised of three Democrats: Assemblymembers Barbara Matthews of Tracy, Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills, Betty Karnette of Long Beach and one Republican, Russ Bogh of Cherry Valley. Their personal experience with disabled children and siblings has created a bond and a determination to speak up on behalf of a community often left in the dark and the dust in the budget process. Not this time.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (2)
Foundations: interdependence
May 03, 2006
[Crossposted on dailykos]
About a year ago, I came across a couple of references to conservative thinker Russell Kirk. His ten conservative principles, first published in 1957 and last updated in 1993, was reportedly a great influence on the thinking of Barry Goldwater and others at the dawn of movement conservativism.
Apparently, no one on our side ever wrote a response. I'd like to be proven wrong, but if someone did, it isn't showing up on google.
I've drafted the first part of such a response, a ten progressive principles approach that answers Kirk point by point. But I want to start with just one principle...
MORE »
Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)
Today without an immigrant
May 01, 2006
A day without an immigrant is like a day without??? That seems to be the question that today's activities is designed to raise, if not answer. What the answer is will probably take a great deal of time and level-headed action to determine. The question, though, is whether we are capable of dealing with the subject of immigration in a reasoned, dispassionate way--to accurately address the benefits and challenges of millions of people coming to this state and country for pretty much the same reasons our parents and grandparents came here---for the promise of a better life, filled with opportunity and success if we work hard and play by the rules. Immigrants today want the same things our immigrant ancestors wanted--- a better life, an escape from hardship, human rights abuses and poverty. Those were among the primary motivators for most of our families---and still are today.
MORE »
Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (3)
Ms. President
March 10, 2006
A new Field Poll shows that 69% of Californians support a woman in the Oval Office, although they are still divided as to whether Hillary Rodham Clinton is the right woman to blaze the trail. The margin of people who think the U.S. is ready for a woman to lead the free world is higher here than nationally -- a February CBS poll found only 55% of Americans think so.
Interestingly, though, that same poll found that 92% of American adults said they would vote for a woman candidate for president from their party if she were qualified. That number has increased steadily since 1955, when 52% of Americans said they would support a woman president.
I had the opportunity last night to attend an event put on by Emily's List, where I saw four women candidates who are running for offices ranging from Governor to U.S. Senate from all across the country. All of these women were smart, articulate, engaging, funny, and emphatically progressive. They spoke clearly and eloquently about the most pressing issues facing Americans. They were all very committed, having worked hard to raise the money they need to be competetive in their very hotly contested races. Watching and listening to them, I felt like I saw the future, speaking to me today.
I saw glimpses of a time when a woman candidate for president will be the norm, not a poll question.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (2)
"Schwarzenegger declined to take a stand"
January 25, 2006
That was a quote in this San Francisco Chronicle story today about the Governor's refusal to take a position on a death with dignity bill making its way through the Legislature.
The death with dignity issue is just the latest in a string of issues that Schwarzenegger, despite being the top elected leader in the largest state in the country, won't touch. I suppose people have gotten to the point where politicians not taking a stand is the norm, but as someone who fights for the ideal, I can't really let this point go.
Schwarzenegger's attitude boils down to cowardice. He says that the death with dignity issue, and the death penalty, and gay marriage, and any other important issue that takes a modicum of political courage to discuss, should be taken to the people. But when does he get held accountable for not giving the people the opportunity to weigh in? He has been in office for almost three years now, and he hasn't brought these issues to the ballot. Hhe took the opportunity to call a special election to decide a series of issues that no one but his deep-pocketed corporate donor class cared about.
If he thinks that the death penalty issue should be decided by the people, and meanwhile innocent people are still being tried and convicted on death penalty sentences, where is the urgency for putting that question on the ballot? The point here is that if Schwarzenegger felt these were important issues, and felt they should be decided by the people, he should take them to the people. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetoric. And sadly that is something the press has not called him out on.
Also, this kills me:
On other topics, Schwarzenegger appeared disinclined to support an initiative on the June ballot that would raise taxes on the state's wealthiest residents to pay for preschool programs. Although he declined to officially endorse or oppose the measure, the governor said the idea of universal preschool is fantastic but he opposes a tax increase to pay for it.
That is in a nutshell the problem with Schwarzenegger's approach, and it's one we have said from the beginning. Empty rhetoric. All style, no substance. Governors don't just sit around and think something is fantastic. They show the leadership that is required to actually make things happen.
The Chronicle article is full of hilarious Schwarzenegger quotes, but I think this one is my favorite:
"I did not go to school to become governor -- I never thought about it," he said.
Yeah. We know.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
"Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness"
January 16, 2006
Today we remember the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. And we honor him in the only way you can honor such a great leader for the cause of peace and justice: by working toward peace and justice in our communities.
Find out which events are happening in your area. Go there. Meet like-minded people, celebrate and organize.
Let these words ring in your ears:
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
Motivate.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Governor scores "D" grade on racial equity
November 17, 2005
Cross-posted at PowerPAC.org:
Gov. Schwarzenegger this year vetoed eight out of 18 bills that would have helped to advance equity for people of color in California, earning him a "D" grade on the Applied Research Center's annual Report Card on Racial Equity released Wednesday.
The report card, which evaluated the governor and the Legislature on five issue areas -- educational equity, economic justice, health equity, civil rights and criminal justice -- found that Schwarzenegger rejected policies that would have provided significant structural changes in California. Among the most stark examples were AB 772, the Health Access for Kids bill, and AB 48, the Fair Minimum Wage Increase. If signed, these bills would have improved the plight of millions of Black, Latino, Asian Native American, immigrant and poor communities across the state.
In examining each issue area, the report also documents glaring disparities that exist for people of color in California, highlighting very clearly why these reforms that were vetoed are so needed.
- Educational equity: Only one in four high school graduates of color is college-ready in California, compared to 40 percent of whites.
- Economic justice: Blacks and Latinos are nearly three times more likely to live in poverty than whites. Half of Latinos, 43 percent of Blacks, and a quarter of Asians live in or near poverty in California.
- Health equity: Seventy-one percent of California's 6.5 million uninsured are people of color.
- Civil Rights: Since 1995, there have been 12,000 hate crimes in California motivated by race and ethnicity, making up 60% of all hate crimes.
- Criminal justice: California spends more to keep people of color in jail than to provide them with a higher education.
And yet despite the existence of these historical and persistent racial disparities, Gov. Schwarzenegger's veto list reveals a disturbing pattern of resistance to addressing them. For the second year in a row, he vetoed a minimum wage increase and AB 13, which would have simply required public schools to ophase out the racist term "Redskins" in reference to team mascots. He also struck down AB 89, the Employer Health Coverage Disclosure bill, showing a pattern of denying racial disparities by refusing to collect data that may expose those inequities.
The report shows that more work is needed in the Legislature as well. The Assembly received a "C" score, and the Senate a "D," although 40 lawmakers, all Democrats, were listed as "honor roll" members for earning a perfect 100% score on all the bills.
Nevertheless, the report shows that "colorblind" policies have failed California dramatically. Race-based reforms are needed to ensure that all people of this state have an equal oppportunity to learn, live in safe and healthy communities, and earn a living wage.
Right now, Governor Schwarzenegger clearly lacks the courage and political will to address the needs of California's growing majority.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Stronger together.
November 09, 2005
There was one moment in this months-long campaign that really sticks in my mind, and that I think is relevant to why progressives were able to defeat Gov. Schwarzenegger and his corporate-backed initiatives on Tuesday.
It was at the training for the Castro precinct walk in San Francisco last Saturday. Organizers were explaining to volunteers that we were targetting and trying to move only those voters who would be voting no all the first six initiatives. One of the volunteers asked, "What if they say they are going to vote No on 73, but yes on 75? Shouldn't we try to get them to the polls?" Nora Dye, one of the chief organizers from Planned Parenthood who was decked out in a "No on 73" T-shirt and buttons, didn't hesitiate. "We're all in this together," she said simply. "A vote for Prop 75 is a vote against all of us."
Each of the initiatives Schwarzenegger backed in this election touched on a piece of the conservative ideology that is failing us as a nation: government intrusion into personal medical decisions, attacking school teachers for problems in public education while at the same time cutting school funding, and the "it's my money" mentality that disregards the notion that we are all in this together, for the greater good.
Progressives are often criticized for infighting; we are too often defined by our inability to agree on anything. But we showed in this special election that on a very basic level, we know that our strength is in working together. A diverse group of public employees, private unions like the United Farm Workers, Planned Parenthood, consumer groups, good-government groups, the Democratic Party and multi-issue progressive groups like MoveOn, PowerPAC, the Courage Campaign and Speak Out California all came together to help in a beautifully coordinated campaign.
We didn't all agree uniformly on the details of absolutely everything, but we agreed to work together. Our voter guide was a great visual example of that. We were proud to be a part of it, and we look forward to the great things we know we can accomplish as we move ahead.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Governor vetoes same-sex marriage bill
September 29, 2005
Hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians and their families will continue to live without equality under the law in this state, thanks to Gov. Schwarzenegger's decision to veto AB 849 by Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). You can read a PDF of his veto message here.
He is continuing to hide behind Prop 22, which voters passed five years ago, and the results of which simply do not relfect how Californians view the issue today. Prop 22 was a right-wing attempt to confuse voters into "protecting marriage," and it worked. But recent court opinions have made it clear that this is a question of constitutional rights, and thus nothing precluded Schwarzenegger from doing the right thing and signing the bill. He simply does not have the courage to do it.
And in 2006, we are going to elect a Governor who does. Phil Angelides, who is running for the Democratic nomination for Governor, said this today:
"By vetoing the Civil Marriage and Religious Freedom Protection Act, Governor Schwarzenegger has come down on the wrong side of history. [He] had the chance to enter the pages of history with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson; instead he has chosen to be listed alongside George Wallace and Strom Thurmond."
When my husband Dan and I got engaged two years ago, we were deeply conflicted about getting married, knowing that our own gay friends and family members could not at this time enjoy the same right. We did decide to get married, but in committing to each other, we also committed ourselves to working for the political change necessary to ensure that this horrible wrong would be made right. One of our favorite wedding gifts was a membership to the Human Rights Campaign, which we continue to support, along with Equality California, as much as we can.
We are proud that at Speak Out California, our members sent nearly 300 letters to the Governor urging him to sign AB 849. This was in conjunction with several other groups who lobbied his office heavily during the last two weeks, making sure he heard our voices loud and clear. He did not listen. But he cannot squelch the conviction that we have to make this change.
There will be actions taking place throughout the state tomorrow to further demonstrate this show of solidarity and support. If you can, please attend an event in your area (click on "More" for details):
MORE »
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (1)
Disappointment ... Disgrace
September 08, 2005
The champagne was not even uncorked before Gov. Schwarzenegger announced last night that he would veto the ground-breaking law passed by the California Assembly Tuesday granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
We hear from the Governor's spokespeople that he believes the law should be decided by either the people or the courts. Apparently they didn't make him read the State Constitution before he left the movie set for the Governor's Office, but the legislative and executive branches are also responsible for making law. In fact, some would argue that it's their job to enact the most difficult laws, since they are the ones we have entrusted to lead this state.
The argument that he can't sign this important law because of Proposition 22 is a very thinly veiled copout. Not only is Prop 22 a different animal than the same-sex marriage law (the latter goes to people's constitutional rights, which trumps all else) it was passed more than five years ago, before San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom showed the world that granting marriage licenses to loving same-sex couples would not cause giant cracks in the earth to open up. Schwarzenegger recently sent out an email criticizing a poll because it gauged people's views from two weeks earlier. Surely he could see how opinions about the same-sex marriage issue might be changed in five whole years. But no, he insists on pandering to his right-wing allies.
Many have expressed disappointment and outrage that they didn't even get 24 hours to celebrate this hard-fought victory. Perhaps Schwarzenegger's advisors told him that he had to come out against the bill sooner rather than later, in order to curb the flood of lobbying letters and calls that were jamming up his office.
Here at Speak Out California, we don't plan on letting him get off that easy. Send a letter to the Governor now, urging him to do the right thing and sign this bill.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (2)
Governor: Support equal rights for all
Update, Sept. 29: Gov. Schwarzenegger has vetoed this bill, which marked the first time a state Legislature granted same-sex couples the legal right to marry. See this post on the weblog for more details.
Less than 24 hours after the California Legislature passed groundbreaking legislation giving same-sex couples the legal right to marry, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he will veto the measure.
We must do everything we can to pursuade him against a veto that would only pander to a minority right-wing constituency, while furthering blatant discrimination in our state.
As progressives, our values of tolerance and understanding call on us to judge people on the quality of their character and not superficial names and labels. Send a letter to the Governor now, calling on him to demonstrate true leadership and strength by signing the Civil Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Democrats stand up for love
September 07, 2005
California Assembly Democrats have passed a bill that would end discrimination in the state's marriage laws, allowing same-sex couples to legally wed. AB 849, which was already passed in the Senate - again without a single Republican vote - will now go to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk.
The collective vote by the Legislature is historic. No other legislative body in the United States has ever legalized same-sex marriage. It should make us all proud to live in California, where we actually take seriously the notion that all people should have equal rights under the law.
MORE »
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Reaching out to the people of the Gulf Coast
September 03, 2005
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Speak Out California President Hannah-Beth Jackson sent out the following message to members today:
As we share in sadness and despair at the extent of the death and destruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, our hearts go out to the thousands of people who are suffering the direct impacts of this great tragedy. In the spirit of community, and because of our values that guide us to take care of one another, we wanted to offer the opportunity for our members to give to the devastated victims of Hurricane Katrina. We know there are several options available, and we thank you if you have already supported one or more of them. If not, may we suggest an option that you might not already have considered:
ACORN is a national community organization headquartered in New Orleans that fights to defend the social and economic rights of low and moderate income families, those most heavily hurt by the recent storm and lack of adequate relief response. The ACORN national headquarters in New Orleans has succumbed to the flood waters and many ACORN family members throughout New Orleans have been displaced.
ACORN is not a relief organization. Your tax-deductible donation will help ACORN:
1. Establish a temporary headquarters in Baton Rouge and reopen their New Orleans office as soon as possible;
2. Service housing and credit needs of impacted communities;
3. Organize individuals to ensure that low-income neighborhoods and families have a voice that will challenge public officials to treat all people fairly and get relief and rebuilding aid to the people who need it most.
Of course, many of you have responded to our political calls over the past several weeks and months, and we are grateful. Your efforts just this week have helped lead to the rejection of the Governor's pro-industry, anti-environment selection to head the California Air Resources Board. You will be pleased to know that Thursday the Senate rejected Cindy Tuck's nomination as the Air Resources Board chair. Your rapid and overwhelming response sent a clear message to the Senate, and the Governor, that we are committed to protecting public health over corporate wealth.
Thank you again for your help and activism, through this current tragedy and always.
Sincerely,
Hannah-Beth Jackson and the rest of the Speak Out California team
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Where California needs to go
July 13, 2005
I saw this on the street the other day while walking to lunch. It might be implying secession, but I am interpreting it as an illustration of our current struggle to renew the progressive dream in California!
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
Equal rights bill makes a comeback
A bill that would give same-sex couples equal rights to marry has been revived in a new form, and was passed by a committee in the California Senate Tuesday. What was Mark Leno's AB 19 is now AB 849, and it is headed for another vote before the full Senate where it is sure to pass.
It's the Assembly where the bill still needs help. AB 19 failed the first time around by six votes (eight moderate Democrats either opposed it or abstained), and in today's Chronicle account of the issue, Leno says he has gotten that down to three.
Leno is so right to push this. Not only is it absolutely the right thing to do, it's an opportunity to bring the fight straight to Schwarzenegger, a self-proclaimed moderate Republican. Indications are that the Governor would veto the measure, which would likely shore up his Republican base. But that's not where we are having the problem, as we already know Republicans in the state overwhemlingly support him. It's the Democrats who voted for Schwarzenegger in the recall who we need to shore up against him, and a vote against equal rights could very well help do that.
Our friends at Equality California have been doing great work in this important battle, and we urge you to visit their site and sign up for action alerts so you can make a difference when the crucial votes come.
So far the Democratic opposition has been from people in tough districts, mostly Central Valley or Inland Empire. But while re-election is important, what is that worth if there are thousands of citizens in this state who are the victims of blatant bigotry? We are better than that in California, and it's time to make it right.
I mean, if California Democrats can't even stand up for love, we're really in trouble.
Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)
a project of the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream
