Disqus - Latest Comments for wswaim

Re: DISTRICT WEEKLY PUBLISHER HITS ROAD!

wswaim — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:47:27 -0000

The "best buy example"?

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:38:26 -0000

John: Sorry: For a guy whose job is communication, I didn't make clear my point (vis-a-vis religion and American law)--which is this: Prop 8 attempts to create a legal distinction among citizens, a distinction that is based only (only) on an appeal to religion. (Or maybe religion and prejudice.) I was trying to say that THAT's what's likely to be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. There's no other reason to strip a class of U.S. citizens of their right to lawful union.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:28:45 -0000

Thanks, Gina. I think LB City Girl misunderstands your point (and mine) about money and Prop 8: passing the prop (i.e., banning gay marriage) would limit the cash gays and lesbians have been spending on their weddings. I address my problems with that calculation in the story.

And HowardX raises precisely the point I do: that American law isn't supposed to be based solely on appeal to religion. That's what the First Amendment is about. I'm all for a solution I didn't outline in the story: get the state completely out of the "marriage" game. "Marriage" becomes a purely religious term--like, say, "baptism." The state licenses only civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. You want a wedding--a "marriage" ceremony--you go to the county, get a license for a civil union and then find someone who will marry you. But marriage is no longer a legal construct; civil union is.

Re: EVERYBODY MARCHES IN VET PARADE!

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:28:01 -0000

I don't think sexual orientation was the issue, just whether you were sufficiently pro-war:

http://thedistrictweekly.co...

Re: HOW RACISM WORKS: McCAIN v OBAMA

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:26:17 -0000

Howardx: I'm no fan of our new comment system, either. Can you email me (will@thedistrictweekly.com) and tell me why YOU hate it?

Also: I'd feel better if (a) we didn't attack each other personally, but assumed that we're all struggling for the truth (even when it looks like we aren't struggling very hard); and (b) if you sense that someone's really dicking you personally, here's my advice: see (a) above and assume that they were typing without thinking for just that moment, and then you handle their claims.

I know this runs totally counter to most of the animating impulses of the web, but I'd seriously feel like a failure if something I helped set up with honest intentions (to create a place where we can all talk about profound, serious stuff) turned out to be, I don't know, like a firing range. And look at it this way: with a few exceptions on the far, far fringes, we're all people who represent a tiny fraction of the country: people who read and think seriously about the future of the country. We have that in common, right?

Having said that, can I just say that, Laurence, you scare me. Don't know if that was your intention. But that's what happened. Your lead response here is so nearly devoid of (what's that called?) fact that there's just nothing to respond to but the nightmare you've created for yourself, which, seriously, yikes. I get this, though: if you really believed half of what you write about military and political service, you'd have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:12:48 -0000

John B: Thanks for your questions. Randy (of Randy and David) already answered a few; I’ll answer the others as best I can (limited time).

Why "radicalize North American Christian churches"? Because my parents (though conservative) come from a kind of Catholic Worker (i.e., visit the sick and those in prison, comfort the elderly and poor) perspective. So I grew up believing that faith without works is dead, and etc.

Why perform wedding ceremonies . . . that have no lawful basis?” I don’t understand the question: in California, marriage between consenting adults is legal. Even if gay marriage weren’t recognized by the state, I’d still want to help my friends (gay or straight) solemnize their relationships.

“Does not all codified law ultimately originate from one religious teaching or another?” I guess as human society evolves, sure, you could argue that much of what we call law has been expressed in religious terms. But that wouldn’t explain why Christians (for example) observe some of those laws (homosexuality is an abomination) while ignoring others (all dietary restrictions). For the explanation of that evolution, you might have to allow that, at least since the Enlightenment, we’ve begun to acknowledge that some of the laws we expressed in religious terms (Thou shalt not murder) remain reasonable for practical (and, sure, therefore spiritual) reasons, while others (e.g., the numerous places in which the Bible actually supports slavery and just appalling bloodshed and the murder of innocents) are clearly outrages to human dignity. Make sense?

Gay couples’ feelings vis-à-vis non-recognition in backward states? I can’t say. But I think you’ve got a great idea for a story.

Would Yes on 8 violate “prohibitions against the passage of ex-post-facto laws?” Another great story. What do you think?

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:41:47 -0000

JohnB: Thanks for understanding that, of course, I went to the heart of your question which was really (I figured) about how to reduce the prison/jail populations. Hence Three Strikes--which you credit with the falling crime rate in mid to late 90s; I notice that that trend coincides with (hey, hey) the Clinton economic boom. Could be, right? Could be that crime rises in tough times?

I can't assure you that drug users won't commit crimes, John B. But how about we agree that punishing drug users because they might commit another crime is kind of Philip D. Dick nightmarish. How about we just punish people for the crimes they commit, rather than criminalize behaviors we think MIGHT lead to crime? That jurisprudential philosophy (along with restoring the independence of judges, rather than tying their hands with sentencing requirements) could cut corrections spending dramatically. Now.

Re: RACE: WHY COLIN POWELL REALLY ENDORSED OBAMA

wswaim — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:38:27 -0000

Dennis: You're right that McCain is, himself, a moderate. That's what makes his choice of Palin so politically difficult for him: They disagree on far too much that's essential. McCain was once pro-choice; now with Palin at his side he's calling for the overturn of Roe v Wade. He was once for campaign finance-reform; now he disavows that. He and Palin both say they oppose "spreading the wealth" because that's so clearly socialist, and yet Palin herself jacked up the tax on Alaskan oil drilling near the peak of oil prices, captured the revenue and sent it out to Alaskan residents. When the history of this campaign is written, it is likely that Palin will be fingered as the reason for McCain's loss. She's been terrific at solidifying the Republican base--yes, because she is pulling McCain rightward--but she's undermined McCain's reformer credentials.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:47:42 -0000

Andy: There was nothing easy about this change. Griley kicked me in the testicles while Dave Wielenga and Theo Douglas worked my kidneys. Food critic Miles Clements cooked the testicles and one kidney (diced) in a lovely red-wine and shallot reduction, strained it . . . . is this going anywhere?

But seriously: You sound good shouting "hold the presses."

And seriously seriously: the problem with measures--including this year's--is that voters are working in zero-gravity, without context. For instance, I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail) and use the savings (in new prison construction and corrections budget) to build something really useful like a railroad (of course, we could go back to the 19th century and use prison labor to build railroads). But only legislators could work that sort of budgetary and political magic; we use the referendum system to treat discrete symptoms with, like, no attention to how this stuff is interconnected.

And I understand that--um, what did you call it?--flipping on an issue is un-American (along with changing one's mind when presented with new information, striving for a superior education, language skills). And I know you're not saying this, Andy. But too many papers, pundits and politicians (pardon the alliteration) chain themselves to positions and declare themselves unmovable. Open-mindedness, pragmatism used to be the hallmarks of what passed for American philosophy; now our philosophical code is stubbornness dressed up as moral rigor.

And let me just add one last thing, Andrew: I really admire your comments. Thanks for them.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:25:15 -0000

Some really great points raised here. We were considering what a number of you (LB City Girl, John B, DWR) said about bond debt, and you're right. So in the print edition we're changing our recommendation on Prop 1A. We love the trains, but this ain't the year to add more debt. Like LBCG, we absolutely despise the spend-and-debt mentality that drives so much of California's politics.

John B: You pick the easiest crime statute to trace when you choose murder--which was illegal in California before the establishment of state statutes, before California was a republic, under the Spanish and (I'm now guessing) probably frowned upon in aboriginal cultures. Prop 6 isn't asking Californians about anything so obvious as murder. Or slavery. Or wife-rapists. I think we can agree that those are pretty much universally reviled, and that we're not talking about those. What is it in Prop 6 that you'd regard as, like, lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape? I'm not seeing it.

Greggory: Please, god, really, the communication on drug-treatment is already so complicated that we don't want to start hauling cardinal-colored, really malodorous fish across the issue. Prop 5 assumes the law is just. Naturally, if a law ain't just, Prop 5 won't do anything to fix that.

Favorite line thus far: Animal Lover's question.

Re: BEST OF: NIGHTLIFE & LIBATIONS

wswaim — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:17:19 -0000

Everybody: Mike Ruehle is clearly joking. Nobody would take seriously a joke in which we tell our readers to go to bars that are part of an effort to boycott the District--and then encourage those readers to tell the bar owners we sent them. It's funny. Mike gets that. That's why he wrote this very tongue-in-cheek response pretending not to have a sense of humor. Seriously. I'm crying. Because it's all so funny.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:07:04 -0000

John B: Always good to hear from you. There's an old saying about how we're all liberals in the things that don't ruin us. You say you object to new spending--except where that spending suits your interests. I'm thinking here of your observations on props 6, 9, and 12. These alone would cost at least tens of millions more per year.

Re your claim (Prop 6) that "crime statutes do not create criminals, criminal behaviors do," you're simply wrong. Any good legal scholar, philosopher or political scientist will tell you that you can't break a law that doesn't exist; even the phrase "criminal behavior" implies a crime statute. Your argument reminds me of Plato (or was it Socrates), who said that "writing law is like cutting off the heads of a hydra." Nevertheless, we continue writing laws--cutting off hydra heads--and then refining those laws when we find out that criminals have discovered loop holes. We engage in this futile pursuit of perfect justice because, unlike Plato (or was it Socrates) we're running a democracy, and not a republic ruled by philosopher kings who, in the absence of actual laws, rely on their common sense to determine "criminal behavior."

And finally, re Prop 4: No, I can't elaborate--or could, but, like, well, seriously, why bother? When it comes to abortion, there's just very little to argue about any more. You know where you're going to end up, and so do I. I'm kind of immovable on this, and so are you, and we're likely to end up rehashing, what, 50 years of legal argument before finally settling on the raw instinct at the bottom of all that arguing.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:28:56 -0000

Ben: Thanks for your comment--except for the part that suggests we're not always high. Judges are already required to take public safety into account--at sentencing, bail hearings and in probation hearings. Victims are already notified of other hearings involving their perp--if they want to be. Then there was this line in the argument against:

"Under current law victims have the right to be notified if their offender is released, to receive advance notice of criminal proceedings, and to participate in parole hearings and sentencing. There’s already a state-funded Victims of Crime Resource Center to educate victims about their rights and help them through the process."

While sparking up a gigantic duBois, we were particularly struck by the independent legislative analyst's assessment of the staggering costs of implementing Prop 9: "Potential loss of future state savings on prison operations and potential increased county jail operating costs that could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, due to restricting the early release of inmates to reduce facility overcrowding."

So in answer to your question--about getting the "clearest picture of the situation possible"--we think we're getting that now, at a more reasonable cost.

Don't bogart.

Re: MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

wswaim — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:15:46 -0000

Suzanne: Thanks for your comment--except for the part that implies we didn't read the initiative and that we're spreading misinformation. You're right that some energy companies oppose 7. But it would be fairer if you also point out that environmental groups have joined them, among them: the California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Coalition for Clean Air, Environment California, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Re: NEW EPISODE OF HOUSE? DEBBIE COOK CONGRESSIONAL BACKGROUNDER

wswaim — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:24:57 -0000

Moxley was the man behind the Carona investigations. And Bob Dornan. And others.

Re: PLAY THE DISTRICT’S ‘GUILT BY ASSOCIATION’ MCCAIN GAME!

wswaim — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:46:29 -0000

Thanks, LB City Girl. My colleague Ellen Griley sent me yet another "Guilt By Association" game winner: It turns out that John McCain delivered the keynote address at a 2006 conference co-sponsored by ACORN, a group now at the center of a faux controversy about voter-registration fraud.

Here's a story about McCain's speech:
http://www.swamppolitics.co...

And here (also from Ellen) is Gawker.com's backgrounder on ACORN and the GOP voter-suppression scheme:
http://gawker.com/5063157/w...

Re: FOX NEWS RADIO: OBAMA SOUNDS LIKE HITLER | The District Weekly

wswaim — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:14:36 -0000

What a country we've become when familiarity with grammar and facility with language make you a Nazi.

Re: PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS: MUD SLINGING

wswaim — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:18:14 -0000

What I find fascinating is that conservatives who hate the New York Times (because it is ostensibly so obviously liberal) now cite it as their authority in condemning Obama. How's that work?

Take a look at Sarah Palin herself--and listen for the irony:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: NO CINNAMON ROLL LEFT BEHIND

wswaim — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:49:53 -0000

Before we bag on Seal Beach Journalism Review , let me point out that he/she raises the very question Dave and I struggled with in his reporting of the story: we faced the choice of waiting months, maybe years, to go through the records of every site council in the district, or offering this one example as a cautionary tale. I DO think I could have done a better job in editing the line that makes this point clear. Here's Dave's original:

"There’s no way to know if the dollars diverted from Title I tutoring programs for about 100 poor children at Los Cerritos are just the tip of the iceberg at LBUSD—whether untold numbers of other poor children throughout the district’s 95 schools are also being deprived of educational services because of shifty accounting."

We shouldn't have said "there's no way," because in fact there is a way. We just decided that the urgency of the situation--and the possibility that other local reporters would follow Bosetti's lead, taking up her story as their own--made it reasonable to go with the story now.

Re: FROM LBReport.com: OUTSIDERS WANT LONG BEACH TO FIX ITS INSIDES

wswaim — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:29:17 -0000

Disco Sucks: I don't understand. All Bill Pearl did on this story was refer to public documents--contributions to the campaign--and then conclude that most contributions come from outside the city. Far from being "hack," that's basic reporting. The fact that such basic reporting is also rare is, well, I don't know, commendable, maybe? What about Pearl's report is wrong? Or are you just generally anti-Pearl, and is that AP stance really based on a close reading of lbreport.com, or is just, you know, hack? Knee-jerk? Reflexive in some way? I don't mean this response to be in any way instinctual, except in this, that I haven't known Bill to fuck up a story--ever--and so I've developed a kind of respect for, even confidence in, his reporting. So your response surprises me. See?

Re: EVERYBODY HATES OC’S COX FOR STOCK MARKET COLLAPSE

wswaim — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:19:14 -0000

A friend writes to direct our attention to a site where a blogger has collected several helium-filled comments about Cox, including some from this very campaign season--when Cox's name was floated as a possible McCain running mate.

http://nomoremister.blogspo...

Re: LIKE A HOLE IN OUR HEAD

wswaim — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:53:51 -0000

Juan: Another example of an RDA project gone south: Remember the downtown lasers?

http://thedistrictweekly.co...

Re: LIKE A HOLE IN OUR HEAD

wswaim — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:53:35 -0000

JohnB: I wouldn't be able to say whether a "majority" of RDA's projects are failures, but it's safe to name a few--I led with one in my story, the Jergins Trust fiasco. Then there's the LB Mall on Pine--which replaced a bunch of old buildings and was, in time, itself replaced by CityPlace; current RDA officials acknowledge that building a Walmart and Nordstrom Rack in the heart of a downtown you hope will attract tourists is plain weird. And Juan's not alone in his sense that a majority of projects are failures. See my citation of Suja in the story above.

Re: LIKE A HOLE IN OUR HEAD

wswaim — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:50:55 -0000

Rgreen: Great point. Long Beach is one of the few cities that actually follows state law in sending 20% of its tax increment to subsidized housing projects. But that sort of begs the question: does that 20% produce the housing that poorer residents need? Or, as RDA critics contend, does the other 80% fuel job loss and the destruction of low-income housing?

Re: LIKE A HOLE IN OUR HEAD

wswaim — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:39:32 -0000

Juan:

Part of the challenge with return on investment is this: what's the metric? Among redevelopment's supporters, it's sales tax, but redevelopment's critics will tell you that sales tax measures only retail sales, and retail sales numbers tell a very incomplete story. For example, if you knocked down a factory with 5,000 jobs and replaced it with a Walmart, sales tax in that particular zone might rise--because factories don't sell retail and Walmart does. But the jobs would be gone, and so housing prices might decline elsewhere in the city, retail sales would follow, and etc. You get the picture.

Then there's the property tax valuation argument. If redevelopment succeeds, maybe prop taxes rise. But some studies show that cities with redevelopment agencies produce smaller gains in property values than cities without.

Having said all this, I still haven't answered your very good question directly--are there studies in LB that can tell us whether redevelopment has succeeded in producing gains?--but perhaps you can see the complexity of the question.