.
.
.
Dunn, Correa: The Company They Keep.
Our transom is all a-twitter this weekend with missives and broadsides relevant to our week’s biggest stories. Here are three of ’em:
1. Joe Dunn backs California’s Fair Wage Act,
calls for National Minimum Wage Increase.
Santa Ana, Calif. – Joe Dunn, candidate for California’s 46th Congressional District, announced his support today for the Fair Wage Act of 2016 and the Raise California’s Wage & Paid Sick Days Act of 2016.
“The middle class and particularly the working poor have largely been left out of the economic recovery. I support the statewide ballot measures to gradually get California workers to at least $15 per hour. Small and large cities throughout the state are already taking action to move toward $15. It makes sense to uniformly apply it so every worker in California earns a more fair minimum wage,” said Joe Dunn.
He added, “Most Americans, unfortunately, have not seen an increase in the minimum wage since 2009 when it was set to the current rate of $7.25 an hour. It’s been estimated that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would benefit at least 25 million Americans and generate about $32 billion in economic activity nationally. In Congress, I’ll fight for an immediate increase in the minimum wage to at least $10 — we can build consensus for that, and a path to $15 an hour.”
“I’m grateful Joe Dunn is stepping up on behalf of the 400,000 workers in Orange County who would benefit from the Fair Wage Act,” said Mitch Marsile, a resident of Santa Ana and member of SEIU-UHW. “We all know how expensive it is to live in Orange County, and this is one way to improve the lives of our hardworking neighbors and to boost the economy at the same time.”
Joe has the strongest record of any candidate in the CD 46 race in standing with workers to win fair wages and safer working conditions. He is currently working with the University of California at Irvine to permanently fund a labor center that would give workers a stronger voice in our local economy.
Joe Dunn has thirty years of experience standing up to the establishment, and holding big corporations and government bureaucracies accountable to Orange County’s middle-class families. He’s empowered communities through the legal system to stop polluters and fought price-gouging drug companies. He investigated Enron and other unethical energy companies manipulating prices. He took on oil companies ripping off consumers at the gas pump and stood up to gun manufacturers to make our neighborhoods safer.
Joe fought to secure millions of dollars from tobacco companies to be used for local health care services and community clinics. While heading the California Medical Association, Joe worked with physicians to help broaden access to affordable health care for Californians.
Joe lives with his wife, Diane, in their Santa Ana home of nearly twenty years. They have two adult children, Sarah and John. California’s 46th congressional district includes the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Orange, and Santa Ana.
The Fair Wage Act of 2016 would raise California’s minimum wage to $11 in 2017 and then gradually increase it a dollar a year until it reaches $15 in 2021. Once the minimum wage reaches $15, it will automatically be adjusted each year to keep pace with the cost of living.
The Raise California’s Wage and Paid Sick Days Act of 2016 would raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 by 2020 and guarantee that every full-time worker will receive at least 6 days per year to care for themselves and their families. Small businesses would have until 2021 to meet the $15 per hour minimum.
You can show your own support at: liftupcawages.com and raisewageca.org
# # #
2. Meanwhile Joe’s opponent Lou Correa boasts of his endorsement by the union representing Anaheim’s cops, the Anaheim Police Officers’ Association; take this as you will:
SANTA ANA, CA— On the heels of winning crucial support from the Orange County Deputy District Attorneys and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), today former State Senator Lou Correa landed the backing of the Anaheim Police Officers’ Association Political Action Committee in his campaign for California’s 46th Congressional District seat.
In a letter sent to Correa’s campaign for Congress, Kerry Condon, Chairman of the Anaheim Police Officers’ PAC and President of Anaheim Police Officers’ Association wrote:
“Dear Mr. Correa, It is with great pleasure to inform you that the Anaheim Police Officers’ Political Action Committee has voted to endorse your candidacy for Congress in June, 2016. We felt compelled to support you as we have many members who live within the 46th Congressional District and know that crime issues within Orange County affect all cities within it. As such, we need experienced leaders in Congress. Your public safety knowledge and support as a State Assemblyman, State Senator, and Orange County Supervisor is why you have earned our endorsement…”
Expressing his gratitude for the endorsement, former State Senator Correa stated:
“Having the recognition of those who have sworn to protect our communities from harm is a great privilege and honor. I’m really grateful for this endorsement from the Anaheim Police Officer’s Association Political Action Committee.”
To date, Correa has won the following public safety endorsements:
- California Police Chiefs’ Association
- Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
- Anaheim Police Officer’s Association Political Action Committee
- Orange County Deputy District Attorneys
- National Latino Peace Officers Association
- Santa Ana School Police Officers’ Association
- Santa Ana Police Officers’ Association
- Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchins
Today’s announcement comes after the California Democratic Party “Pre-Convention Caucus” delegate vote, where Correa won a plurality of the votes. With 17 votes out of 41 total delegate votes cast, Correa earned 41.5% of the vote, while his competitor, Joe Dunn, earned only 36.5% of the vote. 22% of votes were cast for no endorsement.
This news follows a poll showing Correa with an enormous lead, nearly 30-points ahead of his closest competitor.
The poll, conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, is relatively fresh out of the field, and was conducted from December 13th through December 16th. The initial results show Correa with a decisive lead over all other candidates (etc. etc. etc.)
###
3. Finally, a chapter director of the Sierra Club reacts with anger and disgust at the California Coastal Commission’s purge of its fine executive director Charles Lester, which we’d mentioned in a couple pieces this week; I’ll only reprint a few choice paragraphs, here’s the full piece well worth your time.
Coastal Commission is Under Water.
Overreach Meets Blowback in Morro Bay.
by Andrew Christie, Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter Director, Feb. 13, 2016.
When Coastal Commissioners were preparing to fire Executive Director Charles Lester at their February 10 meeting in Morro Bay, they sounded a recurring theme: “We’re not evil.” They insisted they weren’t firing Lester to send a signal of greased rails for future development projects; they had not gotten any phone calls from lobbyists about this; there’s a $10 limit on gifts they can accept; they weren’t developer hacks; all the media accounts of the likely reasons behind the firing were juts wrong and mean, as were all those damn environmentalists, and so on…
…It put me in mind of what David Foster Wallace said at his 2005 Kenyon College commencement address, describing the human condition: These two young fish are swimming along in the ocean. They encounter an older fish swimming the other way who calls out, “Enjoy the water!” The two young fish swim on a little farther, then one of them turns to the other and says, “What’s water?”
Here’s the most charitable thing I can say about most of the commissioners who voted to fire Lester: They were probably young fish.
Longtime coastal advocates – people who live and breathe the Coastal Act – know the score. They understand the history of the Commission, Sacramento power politics and the currents of wealth and influence that have been brought to bear in the effort to undermine the Coastal Act’s policies safeguarding resources and public access since the day it became law. They recognize the fiction behind the stated reasons for Lester’s ouster: insufficient agency diversity, poor “communication,” inadequate attention paid to commissioners. It begs the question: if this wasn’t related to the development community’s longstanding antipathy toward the Coastal Program, then what was it? Because it certainly wasn’t about the weak reasons stated.
The perennial campaign to get the Commission’s Executive Director fired, which began with Lester’s predecessor and has now succeeded, is all of a piece. It has always looked like a duck, walked like a duck and quacked like a duck – a fixture of the state’s aquatic political environment of money and power – but making that identification seemed to be beyond the young fish who occupy most of the seats on the current Commission.
Commissioner Wendy Mitchell is not a young fish. She knows exactly what she’s swimming in, and she did the terraforming to create the environment for Lester’s firing. A midnight appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger, Mitchell is a close friend of developer uber-lobbyist Susan McCabe, who pulled the strings to get Mitchell appointed. [McCabe – that is Poseidon’s star lobbyist! – Vern.] McCabe is said to refer to Mitchell as “my commissioner.” Mitchell’s voting record and years-long campaign of relentless attacks on Commission staff in general and on Dr. Lester in particular are a matter of public record.
The Commissioners had every chance to do the right thing. A considerable amount of antidote to Mitchell’s handiwork was at hand in the lead up to their Feb. 10 meeting. They could have read the 14,000 written comments they received on Lester’s proposed dismissal (4 in favor, all others opposed); listened to 253 members of the public testifying against dismissal, with not a soul speaking in favor; heeded the words of 36 former Coastal Commissioners, including two former Commission chairs; former colleagues of Lester who had worked with him for decades; sixteen state legislators; ten members of Congress and 153 members of the Commission’s current staff…
###
For Diamomd re. Magnolia Charter Schools – from the State Auditor’s report –
Finally, we examined the oversight LAUSD .. we concluded that LAUSD may have acted prematurely when it rescinded the charter renewal petitions of two academies. Specifically, LAUSD based its June 2014 decision to rescind the charter renewal petitions for two academies on a summary of an outside accounting firm’s draft findings that did not provide key context about the financial situations of those academies. Further, LAUSD did not provide sufficient time for the Foundation to respond to its criticisms, nor did it share the accounting firm’s findings in full with the Foundation until after it had rescinded the two academies’ charter petitions. In addition, LAUSD denied a third academy’s charter renewal petition several months later in part because of the accounting firm’s report. In March 2015 LAUSD and the Foundation reached a settlement agreement, resulting in the renewal of all three academies’ charters.
“With 17 votes out of 41 total delegate votes cast, Correa earned 41.5% of the vote, while his competitor, Joe Dunn, earned only 36.5% of the vote. 22% of votes were cast for no endorsement.”
How can anybody spin this as some sort of triumph (with a straight face)?
As for the cop unions, well…Republicans have Spitzer and the Dems have Correa.
It’s funny! 17 votes for Lou, 15 (if I remember correctly) for Joe, a lotta people not feeling like voting… and it’s chest-thumping time?
How many votes from agencies either under or threatened with federal investigation?
Agencies? Here we are talking about the people on the Democratic Central Committee … no, let me see… the “California Democratic Party “Pre-Convention Caucus” delegate vote, where Correa won a plurality of the votes.”
Of course, Dan Chmielewski would call that a MAJORITY. If he were in the mood.
That guy has the absolute strangest steak of stubbornness I’ve ever even heard about. That plurality discussion was priceless.
Speaking to endorsements on the prior comment. One of the candidates in this race seems to have a majority, errrr monopoly, on endorsements from individuals or agencies being looked at by the feds.
I don’t find that conclusive, but it sure is interesting.
Oh. The candidate who trades endorsements with T-Rack.
Not having school age children, I was neither noticed nor aware of this action. Readers who do, might evaluate if action is necessary for their privacy protection. FWIW-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/how-to-prevent-your-school-data-including-your-social-security-number-from-getting-wrapped-up-in-a-lawsuit/?
Chairman Vern,
I did not have a chance to respond to Ziegfried’s request for an apology in the last week and now closed WOT.
He took offense of “your admired Nazi army” statement. I made that statement based on his characterization of the German army:” the leanest, meanest, best-equipped fighting machine that the world has ever known.” As I believe in civilized behavior as he does, I apologize if in his view this characterization is not an admiration.
I find very uncivilized the wall-building proposals. Rather than demonizing a significant section of our community, some of them now living in fear or deprived of their loved ones, let’s explore a civilized way to deal with immigration. Until then, chisels and hammers!
Yeah, I didn’t think he was expressing admiration, well at least not approval.
That’s good, he’ll see this here.
Thanks for your response, Ricardo. I understand how you could have misinterpreted my sentiments about the Nazi army. I could have been more descriptive. Not a big deal. It was very nice of you. I forgot all about it.
Anyway, my point was that I couldn’t fathom how the Nazi government had the wherewithal to finance such a powerful fighting force that conquered and occupied much of Europe in the midst of an economic depression that hit Germany much harder than the US, without the help of wealthy international financiers. The Nazi government was a brutal regime. Even in wartime there have to be certain lines that nations refuse to cross, particularly with civilian populations. I guess we’ll just have to accept the fact that there will be future wars and people will perish. But they need to leave the civilian populations alone. Too bad George W. Bush never got the message. It looks like even South Caroline figured it out.
It’s a shame that Mexico refuses to care for it’s own poor citizens and instead encourages them to cross our border for help. That’s not being a good neighbor. And Mexico assisted the tens of thousands of Central American minors who transited though their country into Texas. Mexico didn’t help them. But Mexico arranged for their passage into America. That wasn’t very nice. I think the majority of Americans are tired being taken advantage of. And I think that’s one reason Trump has gained so much popularity. If Mexico treated us like they want to be treated there wouldn’t be any need for a wall. If Trump is elected hopefully he can cut a fair cooperative agreement with Mexico that would eliminate any need for a wall. That’s my wish.
When you suggest that “Mexico” should care for its poor citizens, are you talking about the Mexican government?
Of course the Mexican government. But not just the Mexican government. The Mexican people should help take care of their own via charity and their churches instead of offloading them on their neighbors to the north.
People everywhere should not reproduce unless they have the means to support and provide a decent life to their offspring. That’s just plain old responsibility.
How would Mexico like it if we offloaded South Central and East LA on them?
It’s all about being good neighbors.
That’s why if Trump gets elected I would like to see him broker a deal with Mexico to keep their poor and destitute on their side of the border as opposed to building a wall. I don’t want a wall either. But if Mexico refuses to cooperate, what other choice do we have?
All nations protect their best interests. Why should we be different from the rest?
In other words, just stop being poor.
And how do you feel about the American government caring for its poor citizens?
The US Census Bureau reported that California is ranked #1 (2010-2014) in poverty when adjusted by geographical location. Why would we need more poor people who generally require financial assistance from those who pay taxes? The poverty rate was reported to be 23.8%. What happens when 40% of those living in California are impoverished? Are you willing to pay much higher income taxes to support all the world’s poor people living in California?
I’m not telling poor people around the world to stop being poor. I’m just asking them not to violate our immigration laws and become our burden. That’s a fair request.
Poor people in America lives quite well in comparison to poor people in many other nations. I believe our government has a responsibility to help poor Americans. But not poor foreigners.
Sure you are. Take care of your own, you poor Mexicans!
(Yes, I’m oversimplifying, I know.)
That said, I agree that having an official government policy to emigrate a percentage of the population every year is an irresponsible reaction to poverty. You’ve got that right.
Consider though that American demand for drugs plays an overwhelming negative role in Mexican life. We seem to have absolutely no qualms about allowing our bad behavior to disrupt Mexican families. Yet we seemingly have an over abundance of ( usually unjust) criticism for Mexican behavior impacting American families. I think we all know the root of our double standard.
Perhaps our role in addressing the poverty we cause though our own reckless behavior ought to be broader than building a wall or insisting Mexicans fix problems we enable.
Just food for thought.
So now it’s our fault that Mexicans violate our drug laws by smuggling it across our borders?
Oversimplification is a gross understatement.
Oh, the logic!
Yes. It’s our fault.
We supply the demand. We’re asking for the drugs. We’re paying for the drugs. We’re INSISTING they bring them over illegally . . . well, because, it can’t be done legally. How else is supply supposed to meet demand?
I await your superior intellect’s explanation for how American’s aren’t responsible for the drugs supplying consistent and growing American demand.
Ought to be good.
And that wasn’t what I was oversimplifying. If I’m going to make a concession, the least you can do is keep up.
So if there was a huge demand for murder for hire in America and Mexicans poured across the border to fill the demand as hitmen they would not be culpable?
Without hitmen there would be no murders.
Without drugs there would be no drug problem.
Do you make it a habit of blaming yourself for the acts of others?
Most of us would love to have millions of dollars. If Mexicans supplied us with millions of counterfeit dollars who would be responsible? Us for wanting to be rich – or the Mexicans for supplying counterfeit currency?
It’s not illegal to have ‘wants’. It is illegal to supply illicit goods to satisfy those ‘wants’. An illegal ‘want’ that goes unsatisfied causes no harm.
Try logic.
Google “fallacy”.
Let us know which seven you applied there.
Best of luck.
Demand comes before supply.
There is no epidemic of demand for hitmen, thus no epidemic supply of hitmen.
There IS an epidemic of demand for drugs, thus an epidemic of supply to meet that demand.
Try logic.
Another failure to respond.
Actually you did answer my questions indirectly.
Thanks.
If you two left your front doors open on a hot summer day and while you were occupied in your backyard a thief walked into your home and stole your valuables, would you or the thief be at fault?
More of a psychological question. But just curious.
anon, read slowly and ponder:
It’s not illegal to have ‘wants’. It is illegal to supply illicit goods to satisfy those ‘wants’. An illegal ‘want’ that goes unsatisfied causes no harm.
I agree, you failed to respond.
Maybe the request was too hard. I’ll help you out.
No one (really, no one) here is arguing Mexicans aren’t culpable for bad behavior.
Sit on that for a minute, reread your screed, and try again. I’ll give you one Mulligan.
An illegal want that goes unsatisfied causes no harm.
#sage
We’re gonna have to start minting this stuff.
It’s very convenient for you to define the demand for drugs by large numbers of the American public is simply a “want.”
But supply does not respond to “wants” that are merely hidden desires of the mind.
Your goofy analogies would fit if nobody acted on those “wants.” But those analogies aren’t what we’re talking about here. They don’t fit the reality on the ground.
More diversions and empty talk that misses the mark by a mile and a half.
When you want to have a real debate of substance, let me know. In the meantime let’s not waste our time with meaningless palaver.
I have a hunch it’s damn near impossible to have a “real” debate with the likes of you.
Why? Well, your “know-it-all” vibe is scattered, in profusion, across these pages.
And it’s getting old.
I agree with anon.
While I recognize that your attitude, Z, is frankly due penance for my own, your insistence that we predicate all our thoughts as replies to your tangents has worn out its welcome.
Put bluntly, you talk to yourself.
In the thread above, you post rebuttals to arguments no one made, then insist that someone, anyone, rebut your tangents insisting all the while that you’re the only one being logical.
No one gets a free pass here. If you want to participate in discussion, then discuss. Having phantom arguments with yourself is not a discussion.
It’s entertaining, but it’s not value added.
Kind of like Donald Trump.
*Joe Dunn wins ….going away. Character matters and Joe has more than enough for
both the other candidates in the race.
Just popped up on Yahoo. FWIW-
http://nypost.com/2016/02/21/obama-is-looting-the-treasury-to-pay-off-insurers/
Three somber or funny articles:
“The influential California Republican Assembly on Sunday endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for president…Cruz received the required two-thirds majority on the first ballot at the group’s convention in Buena Park, the first time in 20 years a first-ballot endorsement for president has been made, according to California Republican Assembly President Tom Hudson…Cruz is a hero to the conservative movement and he’s right in line with what we need in California and nationwide.””
http://mynewsla.com/government/2016/02/21/california-republican-assembly-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/
“ The rise of right-wing populism, with dark undertones of fascism, looks set in the next presidential election—as it does in parts of Europe—to pit itself against the dying gasps of the corporate establishment…We must focus exclusively on revolt, on overthrowing corporate power to reclaim our liberty and save the planet from a coup de grâce delivered by the fossil fuel industry”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_i_support_dr_jill_stein_for_president_20160221
I’m not saying I’ll ever leave California and move to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. But for months now, I’ve wished I had a front-row seat to the parade of presidential wannabes in the most entertaining primary season ever.
A Jewish socialist candidate who is roughly the same age as Moses has locked up the youth vote.
An African American candidate’s most lasting impression was a defense of his belief that the pyramids were actually grain elevators.
The whitest male candidate, Jeb Bush, may speak better Spanish than the two Latino candidates, one of whom cooks bacon on the barrel of an AR-15.
The only remaining female candidate is having trouble scoring points with women.
And a candidate with a head like a Santa Ana wildfire has mocked a female opponent’s looks and insulted a former prisoner of war for getting captured.
That would be Donald Trump, who makes me fear terrorism more every time he talks about it. The Donald seems to be one or two debates short of threatening to deny visas to anyone who’s ever eaten a falafel.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0221-lopez-presidents-20160221-column.html
A chance to geek out on local government coming up this Thursday, if you have the endurance for an academic conference,
Free and open to the public, but you have to register. Details at:
http://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/about-wilkinson/wilkinson-events/smoller
-local-government.aspx
Perhaps news only to me, but FWIW –
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/manhattan-beach-we-do-not-need-water-for-our-community-opposes-desalinization-plant/