Valley Dude Nov. 2024 Election Recommendations

November 5 is approaching fast, and it is once again time for Valley Dude’s election recommendations for the upcoming 2024 general election for National, California, L.A. County and L.A City ballots. I start with State, County and City ballot measures at the top, then my recommendations for elected offices are listed after the ballot measures.

California State Ballot Measures

Proposition 2 - YES. Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in bonds for the repair, upgrade and construction of facilities at K-12 and community colleges. This is a yes for me - of the $10 billion, $4B goes to renovation of existing buildings, $3.3B goes to new construction (including land purchases), $600M goes to career tech ed programs, $600M goes to charter schools, and $1.5B goes to community colleges. There is one item that bugs me - and that is new construction and renovation projects are awarded on a first come first serve basis (as opposed to evaluating by need). But ultimately I’m still saying yes as construction and renovation are precisely the types of things bond measures are appropriate for and our schools need it - so for me this is a YES.

Proposition 3 - YES. Prop 3 deletes language from the California Constitution stating that only marriages between a man and woman are valid or recognized in California. This is 100% a YES.

Proposition 4 - YES. Authorizes $10 billion bond for drinking water, wildfire prevention, and climate risk mitigation. Look, I get if you want to vote NO on this because this is a $10B bond that creates a bucket of broad categories for project spending, which can be difficult to track and manage. HOWEVER - we are at the point in our climate crisis that can’t wait for a perfect proposition or for the legislature to pass climate funding. So it’s a YES.

Proposition 5 - YES. Reduces voter approval threshold from 66% to 55% to pass a low and middle income housing and public infrastructure bonds. This is a good idea - public infrastructure and housing projects are exactly the types of things bonds are appropriate for, and still keeps the threshold above 50%. We need more housing and public infrastructure.

Proposition 6 - YES. A yes vote ends involuntary servitude - also known as slave labor - for incarcerated people. This should be ended, full stop.

Proposition 32 - YES. Increases minimum wage from $16 to $18.

Proposition 33 - RECUSED. Repeals a state law restricting cities from implementing rent control. I have a bit of a conflict of interest here - some of you may know I have a real estate license, and I have represented owners of apartment buildings. As of today, a state law known as “Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act” limits the ability of cities to impose rent control in three ways: 1) single family homes are not subject to rent control; 2) rent control cannot apply to any building built on or after Feb. 1, 1995; and 3) rent control laws only apply to existing tenants; a landlord may increase rent at its discretion for a new tenant moving in. This measure would repeal Costa Hawkins such that cities could impose rent control for any housing, as well as for new tenants. The reason to vote YES is to expand renter protections in an expensive state to live in, and gives cities the power to create public policy on housing costs. The reason to vote NO is expanded rent control could depress property values and make it less financially viable to rehabilitate and/or build needed new housing, as construction costs have increased significantly.

Proposition 34 - NO. Can’t say I really understand this one - but according to the L.A. Times, this measure was put onto the ballot by opponents of Prop 33 to try to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation by limiting its ability to manage its funding under MediCal. AHF is a sponsor of Prop 33. Whatever your position on Prop 33, ballot initiatives should not be weaponized.

Proposition 35 - NO. We’re being asked to make a tax permanent relating to the funding of Medí-Cal services; there is a tax on the books today enacted by the legislature that expires in 2026. I can’t in good faith make the case that this tax should be made permanent via the ballot box - I just don’t have the expertise or knowledge to understand if we should do this or not.

Proposition 36 - NO. This proposition re-instates a “three strikes” style law where a third misdemeanor for drug possession and/or thefts for goods less than $950 can become a felony. This is reminiscent of the war on drugs, which stocked prisons full of people but didn’t really do much for public health and safety. The Sacramento Bee has a good article here of some of the recent bills passed by the legislature to address the recent rash of retail thefts. This should be a NO.

Los Angeles County Measures

L.A. County Measure A - YES. In 2017, voters approved a quarter cent sales tax called Measure H to fund homeless services and rental assistance. This expires in 2026. In 2016, a $1.2 billion bond measure called proposition HHH passed, which is funding the construction of 8,600 units of homeless housing. Measure A repeals the Measure H quarter cent tax and replaces it with a half-cent sales tax - 60% goes to services to reduce homelessness, and 35% goes to building and preserving affordable housing. We need to invest in combating our massive homelessness crisis, and I am an emphatic YES on Measure A.

L.A. County Measure G - YES. This measure expands the current Board of L.A. County Supervisors from five to nine; it also creates an elected, Mayor-like chief executive for the County. L.A. County has had five supervisors since I think 1912 or so, and no independent chief executive officer. Expanding the board would help create more representation in a county of 9.6 million people, and having an elected County Executive would bring some accountability and checks and balances for carrying out law and policy created by the Board. Measure G also creates an Ethics Commission as a watchdog against corruption. Measure G provides an opportunity for increased representation, government checks and balances and ethics accountability. This is a YES.

City of Los Angeles Charter Amendments

City of L.A. Charter Amendment DD - YES. This establishes an independent commission to review City Council district boundaries every ten years. Currently this is done by City Councilmembers - which can redraw boundaries to their own interests. Partisan gerrymandering is poor policy on all levels of government, so this should be a YES vote.

City of L.A. Charter Amendment LL - YES. Similar to Amendment DD, this would establish an independent commission for LAUSD boundaries. This is a YES.

City of L.A. Charter Amendment HH - NO. This is dressed up as an anti-corruption measure but it’s not. A lot of what is in here appears to be good on its face. But there’s two items that that are big problems - 1) loosening rules prohibiting City Council members from serving on positions appointed by the City Council - in this case an undefined “joint powers authority” and 2) an expansion of subpoena power for the City Attorney - which surprise, excludes the power to investigate and subpoena the City itself. Corruption exists with self-dealing on powerful positions even without a city paycheck, and the new subpoena power on the ballot means the City Attorney can’t investigate such a self-dealing arrangement.

No doubt there are good things in here - such as clarifying audits by the City cover contractors and subcontractors dealing with the City (which seems like they could do this via contracting today), and requiring City board or commission appointees to submit financial disclosures. I can’t tell if the Council’s 30 day review period for voter initiatives is a good thing or a potential stall tactic.

BUT we’ve had so much corruption in L.A. City hall, that the combination of loosening restrictions on Council Members from serving in Council-appointed positions coupled with the City Attorney subpoena power actually excluding the potential to investigate such an arrangement makes me vote NO.

City of L.A. Charter Amendment II - YES. This is a bunch of amendments to the Charter that are supposed to improve operations. These seem ok to me, but particularly permitting the City to generate much needed revenue from selling concessions, such as merch or food seems like a good idea. The City is constantly trying to hit residents with taxes and parking fees to raise money. Maybe this will help lessen some of the pressure from those taxes and fees.

City of L.A. Charter Amendment ER - YES. This amendment would make a number of changes to the Charter to help the Ethics Commission. It establishes an annual minimum budget of $7 million, permits Ethics Commission expenditures within budget without City Council approval, puts restrictions on who can be appointed to the Commission, forces the City Council to hold public hearings on policy proposals within 180 days of recommendation and more. This is a YES.

City of L.A. Charter Amendment FF - YES. This would permit police officers employed by the Airport, Harbor, and Recreation and Parks departments to be covered by the LA Police and Fire Pension instead of the LA City Employees Pension which they are currently covered by now. This seems fair that police across the city should receive the same benefits, which is why I am voting YES.

City of L.A. Measure US - YES. This is a $9 billion bond measure to address much needed construction and improvement projects for LAUSD schools. This is what bond money should be used for - capital improvement projects creating a significant public benefit. When my kids were in elementary school, I led the fundraising committee to raise money for repairs, computers, library resources and more - money the school didn’t have. We need to use our tax dollars to support public education and make our schools a safe and effective environment to learn - this is a YES.

United States Federal Elected Officials

President and Vice President of the United States - Kamala Harris, Tim Walz

U.S. Senator, California - Adam Schiff

U.S. Representative, CA 32nd District - Brad Sherman

California State Elected Officials

State Senator, 27th District - Henry Stern

State Assembly, 44th District - Nick Schultz

City of Los Angeles Elected Officials

Los Angeles District Attorney - George Gascón

Los Angeles Judges of the Superior Court, Offices 39, 48, 97, 135, 137 - you can find L.A. Times endorsements here. an overview by LAist here.

LAUSD District 3 - Scott Schmerelson

L.A. Community College District Seats - L.A. Times is recommending sticking with incumbent candidates; I can’t say I know enough about each of the challengers to disagree with that assessment, other than the Times does say most of the challengers admitted they did not watch board meetings. So…. If you’re not willing to do that then you probably shouldn’t have a seat on the board.

I’m angry.

This entire effort to toss Joe Biden from the train has been pushed from the media and scared politicians. Let’s think about this for a moment - there’s one guy who has beaten Donald Trump, and that’s Joe Biden. Biden is an old guy that’s true. And yet it matters whose policy is being implemented at the top - his accomplishments are for the ages. That’s what we elect presidents for. And yet this fear has gripped the Democratic Party, driven in large measure by the New York Times and other major media outlets. Why on earth would you run from such an accomplished track record? Additionally, Biden is a bit of a unicorn, having access to more areas of the electorate than most in either party.

Why is it acceptable for one party to support whatever you want to call the madness that is Trump, but not ok for the other party to figure out a way to win with a guy who is slower but with a great track record and still has good ideas? The election was winnable with Biden - there are smart people who know how to run campaigns. If Trump can overcome the liability that is felonies, Biden can overcome the perception he’s old. Instead the Democratic Party imploded, eating itself for everyone to see.

This is an abject failure of party leadership, integrity, teamwork and vision. Let me tell you I hope I’m not in the foxhole with someone who is willing to jump when there’s trouble.

I’m angry because my vote is being disenfranchised by my own party. Because of where we are, I think the nominee should be Kamala (for another post), and I am going to vote against Donald Trump whoever the nominee is. But I may not be voting as a Democrat any longer.

Ballot Recommendations - March 5, 2024 Primary Election

The Valley Dude election endorsements are back! These are the collective view of the voting age members of my family, my wife and 18 year old son. The three of us sat down to discuss the issues today; usually I try to do this earlier but better late than never! Without further ado, here are our recommendations:

  • President - Joe Biden

  • U.S. Senator - Katie Porter (both short term and full term)

  • U.S. Representative - 32nd District - Brad Sherman

  • CA State Measure 1 - YES

  • CA State Senator - 27th District - Henry Stern

  • CA State Assembly - 44th District - Nick Schultz

  • L.A. County District Attorney - George Gascón

  • L.A. County Supervisor 5th District - Kathryn Barger

  • L.A. City Measure HLA - YES

  • Los Angeles City Council District 4 - Two votes for Nithya Raman, one vote for Levon Baronian

  • LAUSD District 3 - Dan Chan

  • Judges:

    • Office 12 - Lynne Olson

    • Office 39 - George Turner

    • Office 48 - Ericka J. Wiley

    • Office 93 - Victor Avila

    • Office 97 - Sharon Ransom

    • Office 115 - Christmas Bookens

    • Office 124 - Kimberly Repecka

    • Office 130 - Leslie Gutierrez

    • Office 135 - Steven Yee Mac

    • Office 137 - Tracey Blount

    • County Central Committee:

      • Regen Wilson

      • Bonnie Shatun

      • Analista Swan

      • Shanna Ingalsbee

Originalism is a legal fiction

The concept of “Originalism” is a legal fiction, a hubris designed to conveniently ignore decades of jurisprudence recognizing rights expressly laid out in the Constitution. This is real and happening - look no further than Amy Coney Barrett has written that the 14th Amendment is possibly illegitimate. That is not an exaggeration or an implication; Ms. Barrett actually wrote those words in a law review article for Notre Dame. I talk about it here: https://bit.ly/ACB14thAmendment.

The Ninth Amendment

The basis of today’s opinion is that the right to an abortion, is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment says that’s not a good reason. I should also note the following:

The 4th Amendment says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

The 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will violates the plain language of these amendments.

CA Ballot Initiative Recommendations

Here we are again, more ballot initiatives. I won’t go on another rant about the process other than to say that I thought the voter guide legislative analysis was not as informative or well written as it has been in years past. Onto the recommendations:

Proposition 14 - NO. Prop 14 authorizes another $5.5 billion for stem cell research. Sounds good in principle, except we don’t really know how well the $3B approved in 2004 was spent, other than a vague pie chart with that doesn’t even have amounts or percentages attached to it. We are in a pandemic right now, and I believe our triage efforts should be focused on relief for housing, food insecurity, health care and education; if we have to borrow money it should be for these items. Not sure why we have to approve this bond at this moment.

Proposition 15 - YES. Prop 15 would permit businesses with over $3 million in land and buildings to be taxed at current market value to be used for schools and local governments, both of which are in dire need of funding during this pandemic. It also reduces taxes on business equipment. We need to invest in our schools and cities - vote YES on Prop 15.

Proposition 16 - YES. Prop 16 would repeal Prop 209, the 1996 measure that prohibited consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment and public contracting (a/k/a “affirmative action”). This measure would permit consideration of these characteristics as one of several factors when making these decisions. Opponents will say that we should not consider any of these issues - that to do so would be racist. The problem with that argument is that government policies create racial inequities today, and these policies and results must be remediated. Permitting consideration of these characteristics as one factor in making decisions is a reasonable place to begin to chart a path to real equity. YES on 16.

Proposition 17 - YES. Prop 17 would restore the right to vote for prisoners who have been released from prison but are still on parole. Parole is supposed to be a chance and a pathway back to civilian life. Giving a person a voice at the ballot box is one way to get that person invested back into civil society. YES on 17.

Proposition 18 - YES. Prop 18 would give 17 year olds the right to vote in a primary if they would be 18 in November. Us adults have done a fine job of mucking things up for our kids’ future. My older son would qualify for this when he is 17 and I would GLADLY give him a vote. YES on 18.

Proposition 19 - NO. Currently seniors over 55 can keep their Prop 13 tax benefit if they downsize to a new home if they so choose if that home is equal or less than their existing home - the theory being that we don’t necessarily want seniors to be penalized if they want to sell and downsize their home. This tax benefit can be used only once. Prop 19 would expand this benefit to permit purchase of more expensive homes, and increases the access to the tax benefit to three times. We don’t need to expand Prop 13 benefits. No on 19.

Proposition 20 - NO. This is an insane measure that authorizes felony charges for theft between $250 and $950. Really? We do not need to fill up our jails for this. No on 20.

Proposition 21 - YES. Prop 21 would expand rent control to cover buildings over 15 years old; currently only buildings built prior to 1995 are subject to rent control. Additionally, currently single family homes and condos are exempt from rent control. Prop 21 would permit rent control on single family homes and condos if an individual owns more than two homes. Cities need tools to address our current housing and rent crisis, especially during COVID. Yes on 19.

Proposition 22 - NO. This measure would turn Uber and Lyft drivers, currently classified as employees by California, back into independent contractors and overrule California law that provides significant protections for these drivers. This is massively supported by the rideshare companies. No on 22.

Proposition 23 - NO IDEA SO I AM VOTING NO. Prop 23 would require a physician to be on-site all hours of a dialysis center’s operations. Proponents claim safety, opponents say not necessary and unduly raises costs. I am not a health professional and this is the type of thing the legislature should regulate instead of the general public... right?

Proposition 24 - NO. Prop 24 will make changes to California’s landmark Consumer Privacy Act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a good rationale opposing it here.

Proposition 25 - YES. This proposition would end cash bail in California and replace it with a risk assessment. Cash bail permits those with money to get out of jail pretrial but not those who don’t have the money. Opponents rightly point out that risk assessments may become arbitrary and impact BLIPOC communities. But cash bail discriminates against these communities TODAY. The LAT has a good rundown here.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Fourteenth Amendment

There’s a lot that is going to be written about Amy Coney Barrett about her policies, her religion and the balance of the court.  But what I’d like to focus on is something far more troubling found in her writings, and that is her view of so-called “Originalism”.  Ms. Barrett, in a law article she wrote (you can read it here) pushes forth the “Originalist” theory that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is possibly illegitimate, and that adherence to Originalism “arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education”.  The gist of the first five pages of Ms. Barrett’s article is this: It may be politically and culturally inexpedient for “Originalist” Justices and legislators to take these “honest originalist” positions, but they need not worry - they do not need to deal with overturning what they believe are invalid pieces of the Constitution or legislation until it is politically expedient to do so.  Ms. Barrett writes (emphasis mine throughout this post):

An originalist member of Congress, by contrast, might have a harder time avoiding the conflict between original meaning and precedent. Congress has to decide whether to fund the Social Security Administration, to seat the elected representatives of the arguably unconstitutional state of West Virginia, and to rely on the Section Five power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment.   If an honest originalist must reject precedent in situations like these (assuming she decides that they are indeed unconstitutional), adherence to originalism is a recipe for folly, ending in electoral failure. If honest originalism does not require this result, the originalist must say why.  

The paragraph above is saying that unlike Justices, who can deny certiorari to cases they do not wish to address, “originalist” legislators may have a tougher time rationalizing refraining from overturning what they feel are “illegitimate” frameworks in the Constitution and the law.  She continues:

Because the kinds of procedural outs that permit originalism and deep-seated error to coexist in courts are not as readily apparent in the legislative context, the originalist legislator might have to face questions that an originalist justice can escape—such as the constitutionality of the administrative state or the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, broad-brush arguments about the obligation imposed by the legislator’s oath of office, combined with the originalist emphasis on the preeminence of the text’s original meaning, strongly suggest that a member of Congress must do just that.

Ms. Barrett goes on to say that, similar to the Supreme Court, which can avoid questions of overturning things like the Fourteenth Amendment, Social Security and the state of West Virginia through procedural mechanics, Congress is not obligated to change precedents until politics makes it palatable to do so.  She writes:

Part III contends that it misinterprets the duty of fidelity to the text to maintain that Congress (or any individual member) must strip every constitutional question down to the studs. That is not because Congress is obliged to treat precedents as the equivalent of the Constitution itself or because longstanding judicial departures from the Constitution function as virtual amendments. It is because the Constitution permits Congress, much like the Supreme Court, to employ techniques of avoidance that keep constitutional questions off its agenda.  To be sure, Congress is free to reconsider super precedent any time it so chooses. The point is simply that a commitment to the primacy of the original meaning does not force Congress to reconsider super precedent when it has no interest in doing so. If the Court is likely to revisit super precedent only in response to litigants, Congress is likely to do so only in response to constituents—which is to say that as a practical matter, the People decide whether and when Congress should initiate correction of a deep-seated constitutional error. …  Politics, not legal duty, determines whether Congress reconsiders the soundness of super-precedent.

It is worth noting that Ms. Barrett cites as a reference for the possibility of the Fourteenth Amendment as illegitimate a piece of writing from a person named Thomas B. Colby, entitled Originalism and the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.  You can find that document here, which contains this gem: 

The Fourteenth Amendment was a purely partisan measure, drafted and enacted entirely by Republicans in a rump Reconstruction Congress in which the Southern states were denied representation; it would never have made it through Congress had all of the elected Senators and Representatives been permitted to vote. And it was ratified not by the collective assent of the American people, but rather at gunpoint. The Southern states had been placed under military rule, and were forced to ratify the Amendment—which they despised—as a condition of ending military occupation and rejoining the Union. The Amendment can therefore claim no warrant to democratic legitimacy through original popular sovereignty. It was added to the Constitution despite its open failure to obtain the support of the necessary supermajority of the American people. This Article explores the fundamental challenge that this history poses to originalism.

Just a history reminder – in 1860 the South seceded from the Union over slavery and declared themselves in open rebellion to the United States of America and created a new entity called the Confederate States of America.  The Confederacy subsequently lost the war.  As a condition of re-admittance to the United States of America, these states had to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery, and the Fifteenth Amendment which provided that the right to vote would not be denied on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude).  So yes, you lose the war over slavery, you then have to take the Amendments as a consequence.

Finally, as if this were not troubling enough, the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified in the same way as the Fourteenth. Do Ms. Barrett and her cohorts believe these Amendments are legitimate? These are highly troubling writings from a person who is being considered for a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Our Senators need to know this and we should demand they ask about this very issue.

 

 

Grandma Sonia - a short story by Joshua Milne

One of my oldest friends in life, Joshua Milne, sent me a short story about his Grandma Sonia; the events in this story occurred while Josh and I were living together at UC Santa Barbara, and while I knew about his injury, I had no idea about the rest of it. With his permission, I am publishing his story at this link here, and hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Josh has also written a book, “The Experience”, which I am just beginning to read. You can find Josh’s book at his website or at Amazon, and I encourage you to check that out as well!

Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House

After the murder of George Floyd, I was sent a quote from Audre Lorde; I did not know much about her until now.  What I thought I knew about a meaningful dialogue about racism barely begins to scratch the surface of the mountain of racism that continues to exist today. 

Audre Lorde’s essay, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, has helped me begin to frame a different perspective on where we are as a nation, what we collectively need to do to begin to dismantle racism and its corrosive impact, and what each of us needs to do as individuals to help with that process. 

You can find Audre Lorde’s The Master’s Tools essay here, and my thoughts on it are below.

***

Audre Lorde’s The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House is an exploration of various facets of identity, including race, gender and sexuality, and the “tools” used to define these aspects of being.  Her essay was written through the context of her experience at a NYU Humanities conference.  Lorde is coming from the perspective of a lesbian Black feminist and her observations apply broadly to all aspects of our human differences.

She begins her essay with commentary on a conference that is supposed to address the role of difference within the lives of American women but instead sees the absence of considerations of race, sexuality, class and age.  She says "What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means only the most narrow parameters of change are possible and allowable."  While this question is phrased in the context of lack of diversity in a Humanities conference, it can be applied to just about every aspect of racism in the United States.

When I hear her question, I think about our nation's "tools" of unceasing 24/7 "infotainment" continuing to fail us, and if it were not for cell phone videos, or tape as in the 1991 beating of Rodney King - how much less the white nation at large would truly know, or perhaps more accurately, how much more the white nation at large would be able to willfully ignore what's in front of our faces.  I think back to Emmitt Till, and how it was the bravery of his mother that drew attention to his death through visual media, not investigative journalism.  MLK had a keen understanding of this as well.  I think about how black men killed are widely described as "unarmed black men" as if by implication somehow the default is "armed black men" (and even if a black man was armed, such as Philando Castile who slowly and clearly spoke to his situation, is assumed to be a threat).  If George Floyd’s murder was not captured on a cellphone camera, would we even be having this conversation?

I think about our educational system writ large as a “tool” to examine American history; Lorde is speaking of her experience at one of the most prestigious universities in the country - accustomed to the absence of input from poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians.  If NYU is a channel for Lorde's commentary, what does that speak of the foundational aspects of K-12 curricula across the country? 

As for the “tool” of policing, this requires its own separate analysis.  What I will say here is that if we are listening, we will hear that police are not safe for many of our American communities - in particular Black Americans and other Peoples of Color; if we are looking, we will see that in fact this is true. 

Once we look, we can find endless “tools” that propagate racism just to name a few:  policies on economics, taxes, housing, infrastructure, environment/climate change and of course our criminal justice system.

What would some new “tools” look like and how might we create them?  Lorde speaks of the concept of going beyond just tolerance to a much deeper relationship of interdependency.  Lorde is telling us that interdependency resides outside of outside of racism and patriarchy - interdependency is the path to strength and power:

"For women, the need to desire and nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered.  It is a real connection which is so feared by a patriarchal world.  Only within a patriarchal structure is maternity the only social power open to women.  Interdependency between women is the way to a freedom which allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but to be creative.  This is a difference between the passive and active being."

This is a powerful statement - a declaration of desire and nurturing as not somehow the other, or a lesser - but redemptive.  Passivity of being is an acceptance of the current framework and structures imposed by our racist and patriarchal society.  It is instead interdependency that creates security and power to effect change - our differences are the source of that security and power to shape the future.  Tolerance is not enough:

"Advocating the mere tolerance of difference between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of difference in our lives. Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become unthreatening. Only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters. … Difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged."

Lorde is saying that if we build new tools from a place of interdependency and not just mere tolerance, we become stronger and more powerful.   

Ultimately, white people must take on the task of educating ourselves and understanding interdependency is essential for our survival.  We are seeing the need for it play out in real time in our streets and by police departments' response across the nation.  "Now we hear it is the task of women of Color to educate White women - in the face of tremendous resistance - as to our existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival.  This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought." It is not the job of Black people to educate us whites; we must reach out and understand in our core being the need to achieve this interdependency and move towards a just and equal society, and work hand in hand with people of all backgrounds to eradicate racism.

 

We are broken

The deaths of George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor are the latest examples of how broken our basic structures of civility and governance are.

Let’s consider for a minute how all three of these individuals are being described as an “unarmed black man” and “unarmed black woman” by mainstream media. What are the basic assumptions that exist in our culture that black people killed by police (and white non-police) are emphasized by the media as “unarmed” in a way that implies that black people might be a threat if in fact they were armed? Why is that normalized? Stephon Clark. Trayvon Martin. Eric Garner. Freddie Gray. Michael Brown. Sam DuBose. Charleena Lyles. Terence Crutcher. Countless others. Instead of saying “Protests erupted in multiple cities over the death of an unarmed black man at the hands of a police officer”, you could say “Protests erupted in multiple cities over the death of George Floyd, a black man, at the hands of a police officer. Floyd was unarmed.”

Do we really believe the structures of our police departments to be different than how the country at large views black people? Our media and our police reflect the power structures in this nation. I would like to share some thoughts that some of my black friends and colleagues have shared with me over the last day or so:

“If you question why there is so much power in the black community in our black churches, it’s because many of us do not think the majority of white people actually believe in the same God we believe in that governs our lives and actions. For black people, America is more than just racist. It’s a Godless place where fear and ignorance and power and money and FEELING COMFORTABLE are all more important than the lives of its brown and black citizens and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.  It’s why Toni Morrison said it best when she said that  being American means being white.  We know that because everyone else has to hyphenate….”

“My people stare death in the face every time they step out that front door.”

“Current events have me insanely pissed but simultaneously tired. Honestly it is making me more motivated to have more influence so that my voice carries more weight about this stuff.”

One of my colleagues posted the song “Strange Fruit” by Billlie Holiday with the following comment: “Published by Abel Metropol in 1937 and made famous by Billie Holiday’s rendition in ‘39, this soulful gut wrenching poetry paints the picture of Black Lynching oppression that was the backdrop between postwar America. Where the public gave a blind eye and the government (police) often carried out corporal street punishment with little repercussions. For those non POC friends of mine who have been moved by the recent police brutality, Know that Abel, a caucasian Jewish American so distraught by the photograph of the public lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abrahm Smitt that his heart poured out what his eyes could not believe. Remember this was ‘39 and nothing new for its time. Persecution is nothing new; believing that we are at a time where things like this don’t happen is still relatively new.”

Oppression has been built into the structure of our country since the beginning: it was expressly written into the Constitution (the 3/5 persons clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause), it remains implicity written there today through the Electoral College and Senate system, it is written into our national anthem, written by Francis Scott Key in 1814, in verses that we choose to pretend aren’t there and do not sing:

“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore, That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a Country should leave us no more? Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The Star Spangled Banner is in some ways reflective of our country at large - the horrific parts are there, but we pretend they don’t exist while we sing about liberty and freedom. That verse, by the way, was aimed at slaves who joined the British in the war of 1812 in exchange for their freedom.

I can’t begin to understand what it is like to walk in the shoes of a black man. However, white people can acknowlege the fundamental structures of this country are broken, and commit to rebuilding them in a way that serves real justice. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I can appreciate that the police officer involved in Floyd’s death was arrested today. But we should not have to wait for another black person to die to recognize our injustice and make changes.

Pink Flowers

Pink flowers

The streets are quiet today
as they were yesterday
Ghosts of cars haunt
empty streets

Light from pink flowers
envelops the atmosphere
bathing the sidewalk
with warmth

Shoots of yellow and white
splash across the canvas
with brilliance and surprise
in the empty air

Beauty found in the most
unexpected place
the pedestrians garden

April 24, 2020

Pink flowers watermark 2.png
Pink flowers watermark 4.png
Pink flowers watermark 3.png
Pink flowers watermark 1.png


Fryman Canyon

I took a walk this morning with my son along one of Fryman Canyon’s easy trails. It’s just gorgeous and the smell of sage brought me back to hiking with my dad as a kid.

San Fernando Valley view looking north from Santa Monica Mountains to Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains on a hazy day

San Fernando Valley view looking north from Santa Monica Mountains to Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains on a hazy day

Fryman Canyon trail

Fryman Canyon trail

Fryman Canyon trail

Fryman Canyon trail

Houses in the hills in Studio City

Houses in the hills in Studio City