This 'Green Brotha' Going to Chicago

The Los Angeles Times published a timely editorial this week on the disgraceful handling of the mess at Martin Luther King/Harbor Hospital in Watts.

From the Los Angeles Times, Monday, July 7, 2008.
Editorial: Learning From a Death in Brooklyn

On June 19, surveillance cameras in a Brooklyn, N.Y., mental ward captured shocking images of a woman collapsing on the floor and lying there, untended by hospital workers, for an hour. She soon died.

The tape, released last week, touched a nerve in Los Angeles because the incident was reminiscent of the death of Edith Isabel Rodriguez at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in May 2007. Rodriguez lay on the emergency-room floor as a janitor mopped around her. The description of her suffering, and of the indifference of hospital workers, silenced all but the most recalcitrant defenders of the mismanaged medical center...

I've made copies of the article (along with some others) to distribute when this "Green Brotha" goes to Chicago this weekend.

On Super Tuesday, when Mayor Villaraigosa, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Laura Richardson, and my Congresswoman Diane Watson were all busy campaigning for Hillary, I was elected a Cynthia McKinney delegate to the 2008 Green Party National Convention. When I get there, if anybody shoves an Obama poster in my face babbling about "change" I'll shove this in his face speaking truth about the status-quo in One-Party Democratic Los Angeles.




The Democratic Convention will have rousing speeches by hypocrites bloviating on health care. Michael Moore will be the toast of Denver for his "Sicko" documentary. But L.A. bosses (and their "Amen corner" among liberal intellectuals) won't talk about Edith Rodriguez at King-Harbor in Watts, Linda Brown at Brotman Medical Center in Culver City, or "Transplants-for-Crooks" at UCLA. They won't talk about patients dumped on skid row, or Dawnelle Keys' daughter dying while bean counters at King and Kaiser Permanente haggled over money, though those stories were featured in Moore's film.

Times investigators have discrovered that even since the sad closing of King/Harbor last summer, almost nothing has been done to discipline the perpetrators of this tragedy.

. . . It is also striking that action against employees in New York was swift. The director of psychiatry, the director of security and the doctor on duty were all fired within 24 hours of Green's death. No one was fired over the Rodriguez incident, and, in fact, a Times review of personnel data shows that hundreds of problem employees who were supposed to be swept out of the county health system remain on the job. Times staff writers Garrett Therolf and Jack Leonard reported that at least 22 workers with significant discipline histories at King still work at the clinics that remain open on the site of the hospital or at other county health facilities. County supervisors claim they had no idea. . .

Cynthia McKinney, all the other Green candidates, and Ralph Nader are speaking truth about the Democrats in Washington - and in Sacramento -- and right here in my town and yours.

Alex Walker
Los Angeles Greens
July 8, 2008

Identity Politics

Donna Brazile did a great put down of identity politics on NPR's Talk of the Nation Wednesday morning, while analyzing the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Primaries. I don't remember the exact words, but the essence was...

I might like Hillary because I am a woman. I may like Barack because I am black. Then again, I may like McCain because I am getting old and grumpy.

No More Race Talk!

MY COMMENTARY POSTED ON LOS ANGELES TIMES WEB SITE

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
NO MORE RACE TALK
Enough about Obama and Wright. This election is about Bush.
by Alex Walker

This election is not about race.

I repeat, this election is not about race.

This election is about the worst president in U.S. history: George W. Bush.

A week ago, the New York Times published an editorial titled "Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright," asserting "this country needs a healthy and open discussion of race." The Los Angeles Times followed suit with "The Wright Choice," declaring race "is something the candidates should be discussing."

No. Candidates should be discussing the war, healthcare, schools and the catastrophic failure of President Bush's so-called conservatism. (Read More...)

Be the change...

Ghandi told us to 'Be the change you want to see in the world. " It was that admonition that came to mind as I have been watching Obama twist and squirm over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's recent return to the political spotlight. San Francisco blogger Stephen Smoliar defines Obama's problem better than most television talking masks.

Some interesting conundrums continue to boil up in the stew the media have cooked over the charge of elitism leveled against Barack Obama. Given that one of his messages has been that of uniting groups with many different interests and values under a single "umbrella," under which they can discuss their differences as well as their agreements, an accusation of elitism is tantamount to an accusation of hypocrisy. Thus, as I had previously speculated, this attack may have been concerned more with finding and piercing Obama's most critical point of vulnerability than with weighing the many issues relevant to deliberating over who would make the best successor to the Oval Office. My reasoning is simple enough: The American electorate may not fully grasp all the intricacies associated with the rights and duties of the Executive branch of their government, but they know hypocrisy when it bites them. If they are convinced that, for all of his "audacity of hope," he is as hypocritical as any other politician, then there is a strong chance that they will turn away from him.

It is this question of hypocrisy about which we need to be mindful. Even Republican pollster, spin meister Frank Luntz reminds us that Americans want a sense that their candidates are "genuine." This This is particularly necessary when one tries to stake out a position on some high moral ground. To the be found wanting is fatal to any aspiration to political power. Greens should pay special attention as we have not political power, only the moral high ground.

If Obama eventually loses and Clinton wins the nomination, it will not be solely because of his association with Rev. Wright, but rather because in the final analysis Americans have judged him just another politician.

Have we got the chutzpah?

Ralph Nader's decision not to run for president on the Green Party ticket seems to have paralyzed many of those who should see this as a major opportunity rather than a set back.

First, it is really necessary to keep this all in focus. On this issue, I think that Nader has done this better than his supporters within the Green Party... or his detractors for that matter. His focus is strictly on the problems that Bush and Co have brought to the USA... and the fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama offer anything substantially different. Even when confronted by the Audacity of Hope I find only another apologist for the same tired policies that have created this mess. I find myself asking what are these Presidential Qualities?

We have seen, once again, that the presidential race may come down to the nuclear option. I am old enough to remember having seen the famous "daisy" ad that Johnson used against Goldwater in 1964. It worked. So did Walter Mondale in his campaign for the nomination against Gary Hart in 1984. The San Francisco Chronicle seems to think that this is just politics and expects more of the same between now and the Democratic Convention.

As Greens, we need to think about what the current campaigns are telling us about the American Voter. For all the talk about "it is still the economy" it would seem that the ability to be Commander in Chief during a time of crisis is still a requirement for serious consideration by the voting public. It is the paradox of the Bush administration's entering into a perpetual war.

So far, I have not heard any our our Presidential Candidates take on this issue directly. If we really have an alternative, then it should be heard. If we really are the "peace party" then how do we bring it about? How do we move from protest to having policy credibility?

That is no different than trying to deal with our economic conditions (yes, still the economy). Like the Democrats, we chew around the edges of the problems but do not have the chutzpah to deal with them directly. In other words, what alternatives do we really offer?

Bill Moyers Campaign Analysis

I watched Bill Moyers Journal last night on PBS. While Moyers is always interesting, and in his recitation of viewer email comments,I did seen one referencing the Green Party;

It's disingenuous to discuss candidates that are ignored in our corporate duopoly election system without mentioning or actually interviewing Green Party candidates... For all the indifference shown to the Green Party by the corporate press and derision by the so-called progressive press, the fact is the Greens have 234 elected officials in 28 states...The Greens are growing, whether you know it or not; whether you like it or not. Carl Lundgren

the most interesting segment was his campaign analysis discussion with Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. She makes a very good case for the fact that Obama's wins have as much to do with superior organization and advertising as it does with the image that he has created of being the agent of change as opposed to the baggage that Clinton (e.g. NAFTA) from the first Clinton presidency.

BILL MOYERS: Aren't these text messages going to kids who aren't old enough to vote?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: They may be. But they're not going to people who aren't old enough to volunteer. There's no age barrier to volunteering. And what's important also, in the advertising stream this year, is that there is advertising to the young about issues of concern to the young. The Obama campaign has pioneered this. There is one Hispanic language ad for Senator Obama, in which a young person basically explains why it's important to get your parents involved for Obama. We know there's a generational divide. Older voters, more likely, particularly older women will be with Senator Clinton, younger, with Senator Obama. This is a trickle up theory. Get the young to influence their parents.

In most caucus states, Obama has done better than Clinton and amassed a large number of delegates... again a sign of having a superior organization in place, everywhere.

If we are to learn how to compete in major races, then we need to learn how to make superior organization happen on a similar level. By the time time the current electoral campaign is over, the Clinton legacy may be a text book case in how to lose an election in an age of electronic campaigning.

Note to Barbara Boxer: Get on board

As you can plainly see from the Science Debate logo in the right side menu, I have supported the idea of having a debate strictly on those issues that need to be informed by the best science that we have: Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, Medical Research, Education, Agriculture. I have already convinced my Congressman, Jerry McNerney to endorse this proposal. Now, I am working on Senator Boxer.

Today, I posted the following at the contact form on her Senatorial web site as well as calling her San Francisco Office. I focused on the College and University support that exists in California. The full list of such support is much larger. However, only two California Congress Critters have endorsed this proposal: Jerry McNerney (CA-11) and Sam Farr (CA-17). We need to have more support and we need to have Boxer's support on this.

Even though the criteria for participation in the debate was set so high (15% in national polls) as to preclude 3rd Party participation as well as that of Republican Dr. Paul, this is still an event that is worth supporting just because the issues are so important.

Please use my comments as a template and turn up the volume in Boxer's ear.

Invitations have gone out to Clinton, Obama, McCain and Huckabee to participate in a specific debate on issues that need to be informed by science. This would obviously include Global Warming, Medical Research, Agricultural policy, Education... all issues that you care about.

I would ask that you take the time to endorse this effort. You can do so easily on the debate organization's web site: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/.

At least, note the large number of educational leaders who have endorsed this effort, including these California Universities: Stanford, UC-Berkeley, UC-Riverside, CSU-Monterey Bay, Humboldt State, Pomona College. Additionally, the presidents of Cal. Tech., CSU-San Bernardino, Harvey Mudd College, San Jose State, San Diego State and Fresno State have personally endorsed the debate.

But, this is a political issue and we need support from our political leaders in order to make sure that this happens.

Is the Immigration Debate Over?

The San Francisco Chronicle presented two OpEd columns today that give two very different positions on the issue of Immigration.

In the first, Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, tells us that Supporters of open borders have lost on that issue.

Republican candidates must risk angering their base by ruling out mass deportation. Democrats should support closing the border tightly and quickly - and not cave in to open-borders pressure groups.

Making these tough choices now is what most voters want. The candidates of both parties in the next few months will either adjust accordingly or lose elections.

In the other column, Roberto Lovato of New American Media, believes that the McCain win puts the Latino Vote back in play.

During the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush's Spanish-language appeals and promises of immigration reform won him somewhere between 37 to 44 percent of the Latino vote, a major increase from what he got in 2000.

So, the Latino vote is not something that Democrats can count on if McCain runs. However, McCain is probably the only Republican Candidate about whom that statement could be made.

But when Democrats are evasive - as in Clinton's driver's license flip-flop or when Obama vacillated after being asked by Univision anchors about his vote for the border fence - I see the moral and political opening exploited by Bush in 2004, and McCain before 2008. My father and most Latinos reject the wall as a muro de la muerte (wall of death). That the immigration debate merits neither Clinton's attention nor Obama's abundant rhetorical powers explains Latinos' frustration (documented in the recent Pew Hispanic poll) and leaves many of us outside the wave of Obama-mania.

Our Green candidates need to make it clear that we understand that the solution to these problems lies not in fences and deportation but rather in allowing Mexico and other national economies to grow, to not saddle them with so-called free trade pacts whose effects are so obviously one sided.

The immigration debate is not over. Greens have a unique message. It is not about protecting American jobs or even our fighting the worlds terrorists by building a muro de la muerte. It is about allowing all people to fulfill their own destinies, to build their own economic future without having American consumerism crammed down their throats.

Grist Presidential Forum

I think that I learned more from the reactions to the forum than I learned from the candidate's actual comments. It is interesting compare Dave Robert's comments about the three candidates (Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards) to Cathleen Decker's reporting in the LA Times. I will add my own commentary.

To begin with, most media have not yet learned how to discuss Global Warming in terms of the pre-defined narrative of the election campaign. It does not fit neatly into any of the predefined narratives of the campaign, where the general tendency is to treat it like a sporting event with your play by play announcer telling you who is ahead and describing every detail while the color commentator tries to explain what it all means about who will in a couple of months. Treating global warming in that context has not worked to raise public attention, or even candidate attention, as an election issue. CNN's coverage of this event focuses on the issue of why this issue appears to have little traction with the public and quotes Roberts to good effect.

We can easily understand the narrative used by both Roberts and Decker just by looking at their headlines. Roberts is writing for Grist readers, an audience that already believes in the seriousness of Global Warming. He was part of the panel that asked questions and hardly unbiased about the results. His blog entry today was headed "More light, less heat". He is going to explain the candidates and evaluate their answers. Decker is going to follow the campaign narrative. "Democratic candidates buff green credentials" and all it becomes is a tactic to win the vote of a particular interest group.

The Candidates:
Regarding Dennis Kucinich, Roberts finds him to be "relatively light on specifics." In fact, most of Roberts's comments seem to belittle Kucinich as not really understanding what it takes to make all of this work.

The big question about all this, of course, is how a President Kucinich could get such a radical agenda past Congress. His only answer was that he would talk over their heads, directly to the people, and get them so riled that they would, I guess, drag Congress along. I'm not sure where he sees the evidence for this enormous untapped vein of radical progressivism among the American populace, but he seems convinced.

This is rather an important point for Greens to consider. There are many Green Party members who would love for Kucinich to change parties and for all the very reason that Roberts disparages him: the Kucinich appeals to the populist idea that you can make a difference from the bottom up. That does not sit well with power players, especially those who reside on "K" Street.

The LA Times story summarized Kucinich without the overriding commentary.

First came Kucinich, the Ohio congressman and presidential longshot, who touted his modest-size house, efficient car and vegan diet as indicators of his personal parsimoniousness and vowed to guarantee an annual income to untold numbers of Americans.

Both sets of comments made more of Kucinich proposing a "guaranteed annual income" than anything else. Decker seems to like the word play also and "personal parsimoniousness" while accurate turns this into an elitist position, subtly undercutting his point.


Roberts makes two points about Clinton. First, that she has "gravitas" and "is always the most prepared," especially on policy issues. The second is that that sh was waring people that they don't have the broad public support they need.

One of the sobering messages she delivered is that when she mentions energy independence, crowds go nuts. When she mentions global warming, there's silence. "The public isn't there yet." This means, for one thing, that greens need to do a lot more to carry the message out.

Decker repeats the story of Clinton evasiveness and triangulation, easily understood because the media has repeated every mention of this from Obama and Edwards.

Next came Clinton, the New York senator, who offered a stern argument for pragmatism, barked down a heckler and warned the audience that global warming legislation pending in the Senate would be too incremental for their taste -- even as she refused to say whether she would back it.

It tells us little about what Clinton was really trying to do and a lot about how the public perception of this issue really in influenced by the media. I think that the public deserves better from the LA Times.

In discussing Edwards, both Decker and Roberts have the same focus, but continue their different narratives. According to Decker, it was about hammering Hillary.

Last came Edwards, the former senator and former vice presidential nominee, who railed against corruption in government and challenged candidates to "put political calculation aside and actually stand up with a little backbone for what's right." He didn't mention Clinton by name, nor did he need to.

As with all three, Roberts measures a candidate by how easily they moved to becoming specific on given policy points. This was his overall summary of Edwards.

My sense during the Q&A is that while Edwards' top-line proposals are immensely appealing -- efficiency, green jobs, fighting poverty, etc. -- he's either unwilling or unable to go much deeper. In response to specific questions, he would always go lateral, covering broad swathes of ground while staying light on specifics.

Green Party Action:
The Green Party needs to find an effective way to deal with Global Warming as a local issue. We say that we believe in grassroots organizing. If we were really effective at harnessing the grassroots energy that may be there, we could have a major influence. Roberts and all of the other Global Warming pundits are going to focus on the inside the beltway, presidential election, federal governmental policy implications because those are the buttons you are supposed to push to have the largest effect.

The Green Party needs to start pushing local buttons, getting people involved in making those fundamental changes right now in their own communities. Were we to do so, those who have decided to act now would surely make this function in their personal political calculus.

Calling it like it is... chutzpah???

Thanks to a note from Genevieve Marcus, I found myself going through a blog called The Rehearsal Studio by San Francisco writer Stephen W. Smoliar. Since he write well about three subject that are dear to me... music, politics and the failures of the 5th Estate... I set up a feed to my browser and hit pay dirt on day two.

Here is a little fact the Smoliar unearthed and which very few others have mentioned, especially the nightly news broadcasts. The following four Senators did not bother to vote on the appointment of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

Senator Joe Biden (DL)
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY)
Senator Chris Dodd (CN)
Senator Barack Obama (IL)

I seem that they all had something more important to do and anyway, their vote would not have counted. At least that is the way that Smoliar spins it. Better to read the entire post. I truly wonder whether Tim Russert will ask this one of Obama, who is his guest for the full hour on Meet the Press this Sunday morning.

After you read Smoliar's piece, take some time to ponner about all of the lesser of two evils pressure you will get to join the fight against the terrible Republicans. Join who in the fight? Not those four candidates. As my friend Alex would say, there was never a better time to vote Green.

Los Angeles Big Shots for Hillary

Last week I blogged about Obama and Oprah -- As Far As You Can Get From South Central Los Angeles.

Today, I posted a link to an article in the most prominent African-American weekly newspaper in Los Angeles about Hillary Clinton's big show hosted by Magic Johnson.

Daily Kos: Los Angeles Big Shots Backing Hillary

Hillary's cheerleaders included LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, newly-elected Congresswomen Laura Richardson, Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and State Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, the dean of Black California politicians.

It says something about contemporary politics that this is the very same Laura Richardson who ruthlessly played the "race card" in her primary battle with Latina State Sen. Jenny Orapeza.

It says something about the character of the political wheeler-dealers the way they duck 'n hide and flip-flop on the issues and choose to play or disdain the "race card" when it serves their purposes.

Hillary by Landslide in California?

[Cross-Posted on Daily Kos at: Hillary by Landslide in California?]

A new Field Poll indicates that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a whopping 30-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in California. The latest poll of 418 likely Democratic primary voters found 49% support Clinton, 19% support Obama, and 10% support Edwards.

This essay is not about Hillary, but rather, to put the argument that this tells us something about the nature of the California Democratic Party today. Forget the 1960s stereotype about the "Left Coast." Democrats in Big "Blue" California are not the revolutionary Avant-garde.

"Change" -- What Does it Mean?

All the candidates are calling for "change." I think the subtle truth is that part of Hillary's appeal is actual nostalgia for the days of relative peace and prosperity during the Clinton years. Hillary represents a "change" from the Bush monster we know to... the "lesser evil" we also know. That's cool. Clinton, Obama, or Edwards will be an improvement over Bush.

Want "Radical Change?" -- Look Elsewhere!

What about those who want "radical" change, i.e., a deep, fundamental paradigm shift in the he we think and act to get things done? I have been telling people for a long time, in and out of the Democratic Party, not to get bent out of shape over the presidential race. On January 20, 2009 almost certainly a Democrat will take the oath of office as the next chief executive and commander-in-chief. And then? Some of the biggest political battles of our lives will begin on January 21st.

You better believe the California Green Party is gonna be in the front lines. We are never, ever going to get real change from Republicans or Democrats or some Mushy Middle. It's time recognized this as responsible citizens of an advanced democracy and act accordingly.

UPDATE: POLL ON WHO COULD BRING MAJOR CHANGES:

A commentor to my Daily Kos diary included a link to opinion poll analysis on:

TransWorldNews

...Although Sen. Barrack Obama had been aggressively positioning himself as the person who could bring major changes in the country, majority of the Democrats think that it's Sen. Hillary Clinton who will mostly likely bring in major changes. A recently conduct poll showed that 40 percent of all registered Democrats believe that Clinton can bring in change while only 27 percent said that it is Obama who can initiate changes in the government. The result of the poll was quite unexpected since from the very beginning, it was Obama who had always pushed for changes in the government. However, experts believe that since Clinton had the most experience in governance, there is no doubt that she can institute some favorable changes in the country. . .

Democrats think Hillary is the one most likely to bring in "major changes?" Now, that is downright bizarre. I say again, this just goes to show where the Democratic Party is at today. They really believe these "New Democrat" Democrats are where it's at. It's not just one or two "bad leaders." It's not some sinister conspiracy by the Democratic Leadership Council. These leaders are a faithful representation of what the Democratic Party is about today.