On September 28th 2010, UC Davis held the first debate in the hotly contested Governors Race between former Governor Jerry Brown and one time CEO Meg Whitman.
Responding to questions from a media panel Brown and Whitman laid out their respective visions for California.
Citing his prior experience Brown said that, "there is still a lot of fat in the budget” and that programs like the California Public Employees Retirement System will need to be reformed.
While agreeing with Brown on such ideas Meg Whitman characterized Brown as a career politician who embellishes his record while overlooking shortcomings.
Whitman quoted a national statistic that ranks California third behind Michigan and New York as having the nation’s highest Un-employment.
In keeping with Republican beliefs Whitman High-lighted what she called “the start- up tax” and “factory tax” as hindrances to business that make job creation difficult in Calif. Whitman suggested streamlining regulation as a way to save the state money.
Brown defended his record as Governor by stating that the state’s budget was “never later than a day or two”.
Brown also said that he would fight Corruption such as the officials of Bell Calif. who have been charged in federal court.
Brown also tried to delineate himself from his pervious record by quoting that he has been endorsed by Howard Jarvis who wrote Proposition 13, which Brown opposed as governor.
While Jerry Brown remains the outspoken, shoot-from-the-hip politician he was in the 70s, it remains to be seen if he can offer bold new solutions to the current fiscal mess.
While Whitman projected a calm professional appearance she did not give any proposals on how she would avoid the problems that have plagued current republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who also campaigned as an outsider.
The real failure of this evening seems not to be from either candidates but rather from the media, which avoided asking any questions that might make the candidates go off script and show some problem solving ability in a hostile environment.
Sep 29, 2010
Jul 29, 2010
The Battle over Legalization
When Californians go to the polls this November they will face the issue of legalizing marijuana. If passed Proposition 19 will face an immediate challenge in Federal Court under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Proponents of reform argue that it is about civil and human rights while opponents claim it is about public safety.
Supporters of Proposition 19 claim that legalization could save the state $1.4 Billion dollars in courts and prisons. Jeff Miron, a Harvard economist, published a report estimating that $7.7 billion dollars per year could be saved in law enforcement expenditures. Proposition 19 supporters say the same requirements that exist for alcohol would be put in place for cannabis.
Some advocates of reform have concerns about the proposition. Lynette Davies, an advocate for medical marijuana, said, “I don’t like it [the initiative] because I’m worried about research not being done so [marijuana] doesn’t interact with other medications.” Moreover, she is concerned that the state would not be able to control the licensing of marijuana growers.
Some advocates characterize the Proposition as “a wolf –in- sheep’s clothing.” Rosebud Jolie who is an activist in Sacramento said, “Collectives like Canna Care and the Green Temple are against it." Many in the pro-legalization community fear that Prop 19 would gut the state’s current medical marijuana law under Proposition 215.
Opponents, such as El Cerito police chief Scott Kirkland, believe that the public is being mis-informed about the dangers of legalization. Kirkland said, “Marijuana now is different than the marijuana in the 1970s – in the 70s it was 1-4 percent THC and 96 percent cannabinoids.Kirkland said, "...Due to hybridization and indoor growing the medicinal value has decreased.” As proof, he cites a statistic: “in 2005, $1.5 billion was raised from taxing alcohol and tobacco, but $19.9 billion was spent treating addition.”
Proposition 19 spokesman Dan Newman failed to respond to calls for comment.
Supporters of Proposition 19 claim that legalization could save the state $1.4 Billion dollars in courts and prisons. Jeff Miron, a Harvard economist, published a report estimating that $7.7 billion dollars per year could be saved in law enforcement expenditures. Proposition 19 supporters say the same requirements that exist for alcohol would be put in place for cannabis.
Some advocates of reform have concerns about the proposition. Lynette Davies, an advocate for medical marijuana, said, “I don’t like it [the initiative] because I’m worried about research not being done so [marijuana] doesn’t interact with other medications.” Moreover, she is concerned that the state would not be able to control the licensing of marijuana growers.
Some advocates characterize the Proposition as “a wolf –in- sheep’s clothing.” Rosebud Jolie who is an activist in Sacramento said, “Collectives like Canna Care and the Green Temple are against it." Many in the pro-legalization community fear that Prop 19 would gut the state’s current medical marijuana law under Proposition 215.
Opponents, such as El Cerito police chief Scott Kirkland, believe that the public is being mis-informed about the dangers of legalization. Kirkland said, “Marijuana now is different than the marijuana in the 1970s – in the 70s it was 1-4 percent THC and 96 percent cannabinoids.Kirkland said, "...Due to hybridization and indoor growing the medicinal value has decreased.” As proof, he cites a statistic: “in 2005, $1.5 billion was raised from taxing alcohol and tobacco, but $19.9 billion was spent treating addition.”
Proposition 19 spokesman Dan Newman failed to respond to calls for comment.
Apr 25, 2010
... And Justice For All.
With the retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens there has been much speculation about whom President Obama will nominate to replace him.
In considering possible replacements President Obama should consider some facts.
Since the late Justice Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991 there has not been one member of the United States Supreme Court who has made a career of defending clients.
There is not one member of the court who has been elected District Attorney by voters.
The current Supreme Court is entirely comprised of former federal appeals court Judges who have had no connection to the issues that confront ordinary Americans.
The role of the Supreme Court is not merely to interpret case law;it is to consider if those laws are fair and serve the interest of justice.
When Justice Marshall was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, Marshall was not only the courts first African-American Judge, he was one of the nation’s top defense lawyers.
In 1954 Marshall served as lead council in the landmark case of Brown vs. Board of Education. Marshall won a historic judgment by attacking the concept of “Separate but Equal” which had been set in Plessey Vs. Ferguson (1896).
In Brown, the issue was not simply that African-Americans were being forced to attend separate schools; the issue was that those schools were not providing students with an equal education. By overturning the concept of “Separate but equal” Marshall broke new ground in civil rights law by demonstrating that access is important for people to exercise their rights.
In our time issues of access effect people with disabilities and other communities in their pursuit of the American dream. Another Justice who had extensive experience as a trial attorney was Louis Brandeis.
In 1920 in the case of Gilbert vs. Minnesota, Brandeis wrote the dissenting opinion stating that “ … If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” This was one of the first instances of the court asserting the modern concept of privacy that the Warren Court would later expand upon.
While it may be preferable for presidents to nominate justices who don’t cause controversy,we the people need justices such as Brandeis and Marshall who are staunch defenders of civil liberties and are dedicated to idea of “Justice For All.”
One person who fits this model is Bryan Stevenson. Since in 1989 Stevenson has served as the director of the Equal Justice Initiave. Through his work with the EJI Stevenson has built a career defending clients in the Deep South who are facing capital punishment.
According to Stevenson’s biography on NYU’s faculty page, Stevenson has earned the Reebok Human Right’s Award in 1989 and the Olaf Palme Prize in Stockholm, Sweeden for International human rights. Since the Patriot Act was adopted in 2002 the power of the federal government has increased and our civil liberties are threatened as never before.
It is time that at least one member of the nations highest court be someone dedicated to the pursuit of justice for the people. Stevenson could be another Brandeis but President Obama has to have the courage to nominate him.
In considering possible replacements President Obama should consider some facts.
Since the late Justice Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991 there has not been one member of the United States Supreme Court who has made a career of defending clients.
There is not one member of the court who has been elected District Attorney by voters.
The current Supreme Court is entirely comprised of former federal appeals court Judges who have had no connection to the issues that confront ordinary Americans.
The role of the Supreme Court is not merely to interpret case law;it is to consider if those laws are fair and serve the interest of justice.
When Justice Marshall was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, Marshall was not only the courts first African-American Judge, he was one of the nation’s top defense lawyers.
In 1954 Marshall served as lead council in the landmark case of Brown vs. Board of Education. Marshall won a historic judgment by attacking the concept of “Separate but Equal” which had been set in Plessey Vs. Ferguson (1896).
In Brown, the issue was not simply that African-Americans were being forced to attend separate schools; the issue was that those schools were not providing students with an equal education. By overturning the concept of “Separate but equal” Marshall broke new ground in civil rights law by demonstrating that access is important for people to exercise their rights.
In our time issues of access effect people with disabilities and other communities in their pursuit of the American dream. Another Justice who had extensive experience as a trial attorney was Louis Brandeis.
In 1920 in the case of Gilbert vs. Minnesota, Brandeis wrote the dissenting opinion stating that “ … If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” This was one of the first instances of the court asserting the modern concept of privacy that the Warren Court would later expand upon.
While it may be preferable for presidents to nominate justices who don’t cause controversy,we the people need justices such as Brandeis and Marshall who are staunch defenders of civil liberties and are dedicated to idea of “Justice For All.”
One person who fits this model is Bryan Stevenson. Since in 1989 Stevenson has served as the director of the Equal Justice Initiave. Through his work with the EJI Stevenson has built a career defending clients in the Deep South who are facing capital punishment.
According to Stevenson’s biography on NYU’s faculty page, Stevenson has earned the Reebok Human Right’s Award in 1989 and the Olaf Palme Prize in Stockholm, Sweeden for International human rights. Since the Patriot Act was adopted in 2002 the power of the federal government has increased and our civil liberties are threatened as never before.
It is time that at least one member of the nations highest court be someone dedicated to the pursuit of justice for the people. Stevenson could be another Brandeis but President Obama has to have the courage to nominate him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
