The Blog

William Lucas Walker: Prop 8: The Color Of Pee-Pee

2012-02-10T23:28:00Z

Our son was 3 years old when Prop 8 passed, too young to understand what was going on but just the right age to articulate his thoughts on those yellow "Yes on 8" signs he saw everywhere. They were, he announced, "the color of pee-pee."

On some level, he got what was happening to his family.

Six months earlier, on May 14, 2008, my children and I had helped their Papa celebrate his 40th birthday. Since Kelly was born here in Los Angeles, we took him on a sort of "This Is Your Life" driving tour. We visited the hospital where he was born, his childhood home in Sylmar, his kindergarten and elementary schools. After that we drove to Pasadena so we could show the kids the spot where Kel and I had met, in the courtyard of All Saints Episcopal Church. Growing up, Kelly's mom had told him that if he was lucky, he'd meet the person he was going to marry at church. As usual, she was right, though I doubt she pictured a bride with my testosterone levels.

The next morning, May 15, a late, unexpected birthday gift arrived. It wasn't the sort of thing you could wrap or slip into a card. It was too big. Huge, in fact. The California Supreme Court had just handed down a landmark verdict: Kelly and I were no longer banned from getting married. That night, after nine years and two children, I was finally able to propose to the love of my life. There were tears, so it was fitting that our daughter captured the moment on the video camera we've used to record every moist event in our family's life together, from her sticky birth to the time she threw up on her grandfather.

Kelly insisted that we marry the first day such unions would become legal, June 17, before -- as he so presciently put it -- "they try to take it away from us." Bastards. That's what I was thinking. Our children will no longer be bastards! Our plan to correct this problem was to take the kids to the county courthouse, pay for our license, and get hitched then and there. But our next-door neighbor had other ideas.

"You finally get the right to marry, and you're not having a wedding?" cried Judy. "You have to have a wedding!" I told her we were on a tight timetable -- three weeks -- and besides, a wedding wasn't in our budget. Judy was hearing none of it. "We'll help you," she said. "We'll make it happen."

"Who'll make it happen?" I asked.

"Your neighbors. The Ladies of La Punta Drive!" I wondered by it was so important for her to see us get married, so I asked, and she answered: "Because we love your family, and we want you to have what we have." A moment I'll never forget.

So the Ladies of La Punta kicked into high gear. Mary, an attorney, forever reversed my low opinion of lawyers by baking us a spectacular, three-tier wedding cake. Alexa augmented a $100 flower budget by grabbing a machete and taking to the street like some feral florist, whacking down enough greenery to turn our living room into a lovely, low-cost garden. As for Judy, she took pictures with a broken wrist, while Lisa handled the nuptial food, demonstrating what every parent of a pregnant bride has known for years: there's nothing like Costco for a quickie wedding reception. Neil, our daughter's godfather and an Episcopal priest, officiated. Our attendants were our children: Elizabeth, then 7, and James, 2-and-a-half. Elizabeth called herself our groomsmaid and never looked more radiant. Or proud. James froze on the aisle, as 2-year-olds have done throughout time. Still, he managed to strew a path of leaves for his parents as they strode toward a day they thought would never arrive.

Nothing can compete with the birth of your kids for sheer depth of joy, but our wedding day was a close second. Kelly and I repeated the vows we'd made to each other at a religious blessing of our union at All Saints Church in 2001. Only this time we were able to use the words "lawfully wedded." We were married, in the eyes of our god, our state, our friends and family, but, most importantly, our children.

The reception rocked. Way back in 1995, I had written the gay wedding episode of Roseanne, the first time a national television audience had witnessed such a(n illegal) thing. At his sitcom reception, Martin Mull, who played one of the grooms, looked aghast at the wedding cake topper Roseanne had concocted for him. She explained herself in her trademark nasal whine: "I couldn't find anything with two grooms, so I ripped off the bride and stuck on one of D.J.'s action heroes from Pocahontas."

I loved that cake topper and had kept it as a souvenir. When Mary told me about the three-level, 18-million-calorie confection she planned to bake, I dug the topper out of storage. And once again, these two little men, plastic but clearly meant for each other, took their place on the frosting, this time as a legally married couple: Mr. and Mr. Captain John Smith. Our children thought it was funny. And it was.

But as Elizabeth and James watched our wedding day unfold, what neither of them realized was this: though it may have seemed to be about us, this day was very much about the two of them. Marriage has a way of providing kids with a sense of stability most children take for granted. Now our kids no longer had to stand on a playground wondering why everybody else's parents could be married but theirs could not.

Five months after our happy day, the "Yes on 8" campaign convinced over half of California's electorate that my family's having equal access to marriage is a Very Bad Thing. I heard them say, a lot, "Why do you need to be married? You guys get the same rights and protections as marriage. It's just called domestic partnerships; really, it's exactly the same," as if pointing in the far distance and saying, "See, there it is, way over there. Squint." I grew up in the segregated South, and those arguments sounded awfully familiar. I was in a domestic partnership for eight years; I've been married for five months. The water does not taste the same.

In the final weeks leading up to the election, as I was driving Elizabeth home from school, we passed a newspaper stand on which someone had plastered a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker. She became visibly agitated, as she did whenever she saw a "Yes on 8" yard sign. She asked if I would stop the car so that we could scrape off the bumper sticker. I explained to her that we live in America and there's a thing called freedom of speech, which means everyone has the right to express their opinion, as long as they're not hurting anyone. She started to cry, saying, "But they are. They're hurting our family. Why do all those people want to hurt our family?" It was one of my lowest moments as a father.

Prop 8 passed that November. Elizabeth's second-grade class had been following the presidential election, so she knew about percentages and majorities. What she was unable to wrap her mind around was the fact that over half the voters in California thought we had no legal right to be a family.

It was months before she told me about the nightmares she'd been having, dreams of people with yellow signs coming to our house with torches, trying set fire to our home. I wish I were making this up. Sadly, no. Thanks, National Organization for Marriage. To you I would say this: if, as your misleading campaign ads bleated for months, you main goal is to protect children, how could you possibly do this to mine?

We got married that very warm, first possible evening in June, not to be part of history or to make some political statement, but because we're a family and want what's best for our kids. Luckily, California's Supreme Court subsequently held that our marriage, and the other 18,000 marriages performed during those five months, had been entered into in good faith and could not be evaporated by a vote. But what about the other families, the ones who weren't lucky enough to marry when they had the chance?

Even with Tuesday's court ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, with the inevitable stays and delays as the case likely works its way to the Supreme Court, for months and probably years we'll have California kids standing on playgrounds wondering why they can't have married parents like their friends.

This post is the first in a series of Spilled Milk columns by William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood.

Rob Perks: House Transportation Bill Would Worsen Traffic

2012-02-10T22:12:52Z

House Republicans have an opportunity to pass transportation legislation that would help create new jobs, fix our roads and bridges, and improve our commutes. What have they decided to do instead? Load up their version of a transportation bill (HR. 7) with an ideological wish list that will prevent Congress from passing a measure that could provide real transportation improvements.

Unfortunately, House Republican leaders are doing exactly what they promised they wouldn’t do. In their “Pledge to America,” after taking control of the House of Representatives, the GOP promised it would not package unpopular legislation with must-pass bills. They promised they would take up major legislation one piece at a time, and not sneak in politically motivated provisions. They’ve done the exact opposite with the transportation bill.

Among many reasons, NRDC strongly opposes the legislation because it is a blatant bait-and-switch to boost drilling off our shores and even in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But another big problem with this partisan "poison pill" bill is that it essentially declares war on public transportation.

Everyone should be alarmed that the House transportation bill threatens to derail dedicated funding for mass transit throughout the United States. Currently, roughly 3 cents of every 18 cents collected from the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline goes to fund light rail, subways and buses in cities and towns all across the country. Since President Reagan created this cost-share arrangement in 1982, approximately $1 out of every $5 in federal funding has gone to transit, with the rest spent on highways. House Republicans are now seeking to undo the Reagan legacy by restricting gas tax revenues to highways and leaving transit projects to compete for shrinking general funds.

Less Transit, More Traffic

Make no mistake: It is a really bad idea to slash transit funding, not just for riders who rely on that system but for drivers too. After all, less money for transit means fewer alternatives to travel than by car. So the House bill perversely promotes congestion on our roads and highways. Washington Post political satirist Tom Toles captured this problem perfectly in his cartoon today.

In her blog "Seven Fatal Flaws in the House Highway Bill," Donna Cooper noted increased congestion as a big problem:

Increased access to affordable and reliable mass transit is a certain way to deal with congestion. Millions of Americans already spend the equivalent of a week of work or more a year sitting in traffic.[1] Frustration with gridlock is a raging bipartisan complaint. The late Paul Weyrich, a central player in the forming of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, said in 2009, “Conservatives are just as tired as everybody else of sitting stuck in traffic.”[2]

Yet this bill terminates the Reagan legacy of using a small portion of gas tax revenues to pay for mass transit. To assuage the pro-transit outrage, the bill cynically establishes a separate four-year fund for transit improvements. But that measure has been widely attacked by business leaders, mayors, and others who looked behind the curtain and found out that the special transit fund is far too small and worse yet dependent on imaginary annual appropriations of federal general-fund dollars. It’s a farce to think that general-fund dollars will be allocated for transit when the federal deficit is the Republicans’ favorite cudgel.

The inevitable result of this bill will be more Americans stuck in their cars, higher cost for American businesses that will pay truckers even more to sit in traffic, and higher fares for transit- and rail-reliant commuters.

A book I read recently -- Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation -- reinforces why transit is a non-partisan solution, not a partisan problem:

If transit suddenly ceased operating in any large American city, commuting would become almost impossible. Rush-hour traffic is already horrendous, to the point where in places like Los Angeles and Washington...the rush hour itself has become rush many-hours, even "permanent rush hour." In urban areas, there isn't any place to put more higways...If all the people now on trains, subways, light rail lines and buses suddenly joined the rush-hour drive, getting to work might take as much time as the job itself.

Consider this: every rail car has the potential to remove up to 125 passengers from our roadways (and every bus full of passengers removes 40 cars from traffic). Therefore, the more people who have access to trains -- as well as buses, carpool lanes, bike baths and walkable communities -- the less they have to hit the roads in their cars to get where they want to go. But aside from traffic reduction, there are several other societal benefits of transit:

More transit means more jobs: Spending on transit makes economic sense because every $1 invested in public transportation generates approximately $6 in economic returns. In fact, over 300,000 jobs and $30.8 billion in economic activity is supported through transportation spending in the recent congressional appropriations bill -- including some 6,200 jobs in Virginia.
More transit makes us more secure: Giving people the freedom to travel other than by automobile is good for national security because less driving helps lessen America's dependence on oil. On average each person riding transit rather than driving alone in a car saves 200 gallons of gasoline a year. It's worth noting that the House bill, by boosting oil drilling, would only feed our nation's fossil fuel addiction.
More transit means less pollution: Simply put, reducing the distance and frequency people may be forced to drive reduces dirty, harmful, unhealthy tailpipe exhaust that pollutes the air and cook the planet. Federally mandated vehicle-pollution controls help, but more cars on the road idling on congested roadways will drive up pollution and make it harder for all us to breath clean air.

NRDC is joined by environmental advocates, transportation experts, fiscal conservatives and even right-wing think tanks in calling on Congress to kill this bill for a variety of reasons. The threat to federal transit funding is a major concern of NRDC and many others who are fighting the bill. Feel free to visit our website to learn more about the bill and to take action. You can also make your voice heard by dialing 1-877-573-7693 and urging your representative to vote NO on HR.7.

This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Charles Garcia: Will Hispanic Voters Swing the 2012 Race?

2012-02-10T18:44:00Z

This post originally appeared on CNN.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush recently argued in an op-ed that Hispanic voters will represent the margin of victory in the 15 swing states that will decide who will win the race for the White House. Is his political intuition right? And if it is, how do both parties significantly increase their chances of winning the Hispanic vote?

Determining what qualifies as a swing state is not an exact science, but the best estimate nine months out is as follows: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The key for political parties is registering Hispanics to vote. According to the U.S. Census, 84 percent of Hispanic registered voters reported voting in 2008. In North Carolina, not generally considered a "Hispanic state," from 2000 to 2010 the Hispanic population grew 111 percent. Between January 2008 and November 4, 2008, Hispanic voter registration in North Carolina grew by 62 percent, from 42,000 to 68,000. Obama won the state by only 14,177 votes. Since then, Hispanic voter registration in North Carolina has nearly doubled to 130,615.

According to the U.S. Census, in 2010 there were 492,330 Latinos of voting age in North Carolina, representing a clear opportunity for both parties. In a tight race, Hispanic voters could be the margin of victory in 12 of the 15 swing states. (For more state by state data, click here)

Three important points about Hispanic swing voters:

Hispanics lean Democratic, but it's not a base Democratic vote. Hispanics cast their ballots on issues and in favor of the candidates rather than for the party, much like 40 percent of the population, which is now considered independent.
Campaigns need to communicate to Hispanics in both English and Spanish. A strategic move behind President Obama winning 67 percent of Hispanic vote was his campaign's outspending McCain in the Spanish language media by five to one.
Hispanic adults are more engaged in the social Web than non-Hispanics, over-indexing as creators, critics, collectors, joiners in and spectators of social networks.

In addressing the concerns of this demographic, no candidate can ignore the issue of immigration reform, particularly when it comes to young, first-time voters. Each month 50,000 Hispanics in the United States turn 18. These young voters power Latino social networks, connecting on Facebook and tweeting voters across the country. Imagine the response when the hardworking mom or dad of these young voters is called a "criminal" by a candidate.

A recent Pew survey found that Latinos, by 91 percent, support legislation known as the Dream Act that would give legal status to illegal immigrants who earn college degrees or serve in the military for two years. Imagine the waves across social media when the Dream Act is not aggressively pursued or summarily dismissed.

And immigration -- and its power to alienate or attract voters -- is the key for both parties, not just Republicans. Yet, so far for both parties, immigration has been kryptonite. President Obama broke his promise to introduce an immigration reform bill during his first year in office. He deported 1.2 million Latinos, including 46,000 parents of American citizens. His draconian policies left thousands of frightened children languishing in foster care, which brought an onslaught of negative Spanish-language media. Heading into the presidential campaign, President Obama's approval rating among Latinos has plunged 36 points since April 2009 -- from 85 percent to 49 percent, according to a recent Pew survey.

Obama's potential opponent, Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, wants to make life so unbearable for Hispanics working here illegally that they will "self-deport." Passing apartheid-like laws to pressure Hispanic undocumented workers to leave the country is central to Romney's platform. Witness the laws passed in Alabama, Arizona and South Carolina, whose chief architect, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, happily endorsed Romney, advises the campaign and acts as a surrogate.

To win over Hispanic voters, both President Obama and the GOP nominee need to smother the kryptonite that the issue of immigration has become with a lead blanket of comprehensive immigration reform, supported by strong majorities of Hispanic swing voters and a majority of independents and the general public. Tackling this issue in a thoughtful manner is supported by strong majorities of Hispanic swing voters and a majority of the general public. Only then can the conversation between Hispanic voters and the candidate really begin.

In the 2008 election there was a 30 percent swing of Hispanic votes away from the Republican Party's share of the vote in 2004. This swing vote was enough to elect Barack Obama to the White House and turn six states -- Colorado, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia -- from red to blue. Any candidate or campaign that ignores Hispanic swing voters does it at their peril.

Rick Schwartz: Losing an Academy Award: The Aftermath

2012-02-10T18:05:12Z

This is the third of a four-part series. Read part two here.

Here's what you don't see on television: immediately after the last award is given, the TV cameras go off and the bright lights in the aptly named Kodak Theatre go on. This is now your worst nightmare. For security reasons, logistical stupidity and other associated causes, nobody can go anywhere for a few short but excruciating minutes. So basically, you have one group of really happy people with shiny gold statues, and then you have another group of people standing 5 feet away from them who are identical in every way -- except for the really happy part. And the statues.

You slowly shuffle out, as hugs and tears of joy envelop practically everyone around you. Around you, not actually you; a small but key distinction. Luckily, in anticipation of your Big Victory, you were invited to every major party. (If there were a way to gracefully rescind those invites now, they would surely do it.) There's little time to grieve -- it's happy face time! This classic look, perfected by every losing actor at every single award show, will now become your mask du jour. Except that they're professional actors who fake things for a living, and you're not -- so your smile will gradually erode into a half-scowl/half-smirk. That, you will soon discover, is why they are in front of the camera and you are not.

This will prove to be a very long night.

You try to act professionally, shuffling off to the first party along with the other Losers. You now see all human beings, however, through a brand new prism: people who were lucky enough to not be nominated, people who were kidding themselves if they thought they had a chance to win, and people who shouldn't be at these parties in the first place. Of course, every once in a while, amidst the crush of celebrity and wonderfully soft lighting, you spot an unmistakable glow: Someone holding that damn statue. Invariably, they're surrounded by the "can I hold it?" crowd, and wearing those goofy grins you've already come to hate. If they gave awards for envy, you'd be clinging to your little green guy right this second.

Much like the build-up to the Oscars themselves, there's a parade of more and more parties and you dutifully show your tortured face at each one. (Why, you ask yourself? Is there anything left to win?) Studio A has their particular winner front and center, bathed in the golden glow, holding court when you walk in so you're forced to pay your respects -- like it or not. Too much, too soon, so it's on to Studio B's party, where the mood is grim, since they spent way too much on advertising to win one lousy Art Director's award and you think, 'hey, I can hang with this crowd, but here comes their winner...' and everything brightens around them and suddenly you don't care if it's a 'minor category' or not, it's time to go. Studio C is way too celebratory for what's come their way earlier that night, giving you a brief pang of hope. Can you just pretend you won? Will people actually fall for that? (Maybe they didn't see the show?)

Then you pin down a mid-level accountant who's served 15 years there and he gives up the goods: they're using fuzzy math. Co-productions, split rights deals, independent divisions, movies they can pronounce -- they're counting them all and claiming them as victories for the home team. You're definitely a standout Loser in this crowd. Studio D is the one that took home the Big One, the one you were supposed to get. You definitely shouldn't be here -- the wound is way too fresh -- yet something draws you in. As you near the roped-off section where the Big Winners gloat, you suddenly devise a really solid, well-conceived plan -- grab their goddamn statues and run for the exits. Have your name engraved over theirs later. Deny you were ever at the party in the first place. But when you actually come face to face with them (after crawling under the legs of a mammoth bouncer and an emaciated actress), you both look at each other with a sense of déjà vu. We just had this moment a few hours ago at the ceremony, and the look on their faces says it all: you were a Loser then, you're a Loser now, and despite managing to squirrel your way into the VIP section just to ogle the Big Winners, you'll still be a Loser tomorrow. Needless to say, you slink off towards the valet.

To be continued...

Phil Ramone and Danielle Evin: Dog Ears Music: For Love Is Agony Playlist

2012-02-10T17:28:03Z

Sia

Song: The Co-Dependent
Album: We Are Born
Genre: Pop
Buy: iTunes.com

Of Montreal

Song: How Lester Lost His Wife (LP Version)
Album: Satanic Panic in the Attic
Genre: Rock
Buy: iTunes.com

Arthur Conley

Song: Is That You Love
Album: More Sweet Soul
Genre: R&B/Soul
Buy: iTunes.com

Soul Children

Song: Love Is a Hurtin' Thing
Album: Chronicle
Genre: R&B/Soul
Buy: iTunes.com

Bobby Womack

Song: I Can't Take It Like a Man
Album: My Prescription
Genre: R&B/Soul
Buy: iTunes.com

David Byrne

Song: His Wife Refused
Album: The Catherine Wheel (The Complete Score From the Broadway Production)
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Yellow Ostrich

Song: Hate Me Soon
Album: The Mistress
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Yogi

Song: Settle for Less
Album: Metta
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Nina Simone

Song: The Other Woman (Live Version-Sept. 1959)
Album: Anthology: The Colpix Years
Genre: Jazz
Buy: Amazon.com

Ryan Adams & The Cardinals

Song: Dear John (Live in the Studio)
Album: Follow the Lights
Genre: Rock
Buy: iTunes.com

Gin Wigmore

Song: Too Late for Lovers
Album: Holy Smoke
Genre: Pop
Buy: iTunes.com

A Girl Called Eddy

Song: Somebody Hurt You
Album: A Girl Called Eddy
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Jimmy Durante

Song: Try a Little Tenderness
Album: Hello Young Lovers
Genre: Vocal
Buy: iTunes.com

The Notations

Song: It Only Hurts for a Little While
Album: The Notations
Genre: R&B/Soul
Buy: iTunes.com

Wild Nothing

Song: Vultures Like Lovers
Album: Golden Haze - EP
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Sparks

Song: Whippings and Apologies
Album: A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing
Genre: Rock
Buy: iTunes.com

Fiest

Song: The Limit to Your Love
Album: The Reminder
Genre: Alternative
Buy: iTunes.com

Squeeze

Song: Tempted
Album: East Side Story
Genre: Pop
Buy: iTunes.com

Michael Penn

Song: No Myth
Album: March
Genre: Rock
Buy: iTunes.com

André Previn & London Symphony Orchestra

Song: Romeo and Juliet - Ballet, Op. 64 Act I Scene 2: No. 13 - Dance of the Knights
Album: Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet
Genre: Classical
Buy: iTunes.com

The Center for Public Integrity: Los Angeles moves haltingly toward ending fines for truancy

2012-02-10T15:45:19Z

By Susan Ferriss, iWatch News

LOS ANGELES -- Fifteen-year-old Juan Carlos Amezcua was just five minutes late for school, and already at the corner by Theodore Roosevelt High School in Los Angeles when a police cruiser's siren went off last Nov. 16.

The consequences of what happened next -- handcuffing, allegations of rough treatment and a $250 daytime curfew ticket -- are still resonating here. In January, Amezcua and his cousin, who was also stopped by police en route to school, saw their tickets dismissed in juvenile court. Still upset at their encounter with police, though, the pair and their parents filed a complaint on Feb. 3 with the school district and police concerning officers' behavior.

Meanwhile, the presiding judge of Los Angeles' juvenile court and Los Angeles city leaders are also moving to curtail law-enforcement involvement in policing student attendance.

The dispute is indicative of a broader, complex and, at times, racially charged debate over how best to deal with tardy or truant students in jurisdictions across the country. Since the 1990s, cities large and small have adopted daytime curfews with monetary fines to force kids to get to school. Now the City of Angels is at ground zero as the impact of such ordinances is reconsidered.

Next Monday, the Los Angeles City Council's Public Safety Committee starts a review of proposed amendments to that city's nine-year-old daytime curfew law. Among the proposals: setting limits on enforcement by police, who routinely search youths and sometimes handcuff them. The proposed amendments would also effectively end $250 fines in favor of negotiated agreements that tardy students submit to counseling.

Troubling history

Aggressive enforcement of the daytime curfew that began here in 1995 has more recently strained students' relations with police, and ignited protests. Early-morning police "sweeps" that netted kids as they approached schools, especially, inspired a movement among students, parents and civil-liberties groups to protest students being handcuffed -- and fingerprinted, in some cases -- and then forced to miss more school to go to juvenile court to deal with tickets.

Students at schools with some of the highest dropout rates have reported staying home if they were running late -- rather than risk meeting up with police and getting tickets that can rise to $400 once court fees are tacked on.

Being stopped by a police officer "leaves a deep mark and a certain perspective about the culture we live in. It is being treated as a potential offender," said Zoe Rawson, a lawyer who represents ticketed students in Los Angeles who, data show, have been mostly Latino and black and from low-income areas. "For someone who is disengaged from school, it pushes them away even more."

That message seemed to be getting through when, last April, and then in October, the chiefs of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District's police issued respective guidelines that officers consider "the spirit" of curfew laws and avoid targeting students who were clearly on their way to school.

Sgt. Ken Kimbrough, spokesman for the Los Angeles School Police, said the intent of the sweeps was not to issue fines, but to help kids -- some embroiled in dangerous activity -- stay in school and direct them to appropriate counseling and family services. "Could there have been some overzealous officers out there? Sure," he said. "But that's why the chief put out new guidelines."

But what youngsters like Juan Carlos Amezcua experienced in November gave rise to questions about whether the new guidelines were working.

Amezcua and his cousin, also 15, were emerging from a market near their school in Los Angeles' tough Boyle Heights neighborhood when officers stopped the teens, handcuffed and searched them. When Amezcua said the two were going to school and added, "You can't do this," an officer used profanity and told him to "shut ... up or else I'll slap you in the face," according to the complaint filed Feb. 3.

One of officers took Amezcua's baseball cap off and once he was in the car threw it in his face, the complaint alleges. And instead of driving directly into the closest school lot, the complaint says, the officers circled the campus and sped up at each turn, causing the handcuffed students, who were not wearing seatbelts, to slide against the car doors and for one of them to strike his head against the car window.

The students were taken into Roosevelt High School and remained in handcuffs while officers wrote them tickets for being truant at 8 a.m., Amezcua said. By the time they were released, he said, only 10 minutes were left of his second period class.

"They were laughing because I told them I was going to get a lawyer," Amezcua told the Center for Public Integrity.

Kimbrough said he couldn't discuss the complaint because it is confidential and under investigation. Police procedure, for the safety of officers, he said, is to handcuff suspected truants if they are transported in a police vehicle. Keeping them cuffed after they are taken into a school is also "pretty common practice" while officers are still investigating circumstances, he said.

A judicial order

Crusaders for curfew reform thought they had reason to celebrate in January, when Los Angeles County Juvenile Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash issued a sweeping directive for court officers to stop imposing monetary truancy fines on any student ticketed in Los Angeles County Nash's court is one of the biggest juvenile courts in the United States.

Nash's directive also means that students with previous unpaid fines can perform community service instead.

"I'm not interested in collecting money," Nash told the Center for Public Integrity. Fines, he said, have proved "onerous. At the end of the day, it's not an effective system."

Instead, Nash's guidelines call for dismissing tickets for students who were clearly headed to school, albeit late, and giving minors who were truly truant a series of opportunities to prove they are attending school, or submitting to counseling or other services. If they don't follow up, they will be assigned community service and could have driver's licenses revoked or not granted, which is currently the juvenile court's ultimate penalty if fines are not paid.

"Hopefully," Nash said, "we've just added a little bit of rationality to the system."

Until Nash's order, it was up to a court officer, or "referee," to decide whether to impose fines, "probation" or community service in lieu of a fine.

Many students' tickets automatically accumulated into hundreds, even thousands of dollars in fines, Nash said, because the youths never showed up at court. He said many ticketed students were afraid to tell parents, who are required to accompany their children to court and have to take time off work.

Nash said that students who did pay fines last year, however, contributed a large share -- he doesn't know the exact amount -- of nearly $7 million in penalties collected by the court's traffic section, which handles curfew violations.

'Blunt tool'

The broad reassessment of policies has continued here. Earlier this month, the Los Angeles County School Attendance Task Force -- which Nash chairs -- released a report criticizing daytime curfew citations as a "blunt tool" that can lead to "unnecessary criminalization" of students. "Involving youth in the criminal justice system has the detrimental and unintended consequences of reducing their chances of graduating high school," the report says.

The report cited 2006 research by a criminologist who analyzed national data and found that a first-time arrest or court appearance increases students'odds of dropping out by at least a factor of three. The negative impact was most pronounced among youths who were not previously in trouble.

The task force included representatives of the Los Angeles city and school police, school districts and civil liberties and community groups.

When Los Angeles adopted the daytime curfew, it was embraced as a tool to fight juvenile crime -- police still say it still serves that purpose -- and as a way to ultimately boost graduation rates. Keeping students engaged in school continues to be a problem, though. The Los Angeles Unified School District's high school graduation rate is considered one of the worst in California, with the district's own calculation at 56 percent and the state's at 64 percent.

If the proposed amendments to Los Angeles' ordinance go through, they would not only end the $250 fines, they would allow students to avoid having to make an appearance in Nash's court if they agree to counseling prior to the court date. The city has developed a dozen facilities called WorkSource Youth Centers to help provide services as part of this alternative plan, supporters say. A Federal Workforce Investment grant of at least $10 million, awarded last September, will help pay for more staff to specifically address truancy.

The amendments would also establish a "rebuttable presumption" that students are traveling to school if they are within a three-block radius during the first 60 minutes of school. Officers would be barred from enforcing the curfew at entrances to school or nearby, and would have to show that they talked to minors and write down on tickets reasons officers were convinced a youth was truly truant.

"They would have to use some discretion instead of just saying, 'You know what, kid? Tough cookies,' " said Tony Cardenas, the councilman who introduced the proposals. Bernard Parks, a council member who was chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, also backs the proposed changes.

"Truancy rates are directly correlated to low graduation rates," Cardenas added. "But kids should be dealing with a counselor trained to talk to a young mind."

Cardenas will separately pursue a requirement for city police to publish statistics on ethnicity and other information about the students those officers cite.

Easy target?

In 2010, the pro bono law firm Public Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union and a local group, the Labor Community Strategy Center, disclosed city and school police data showing that 88 percent of more than 47,000 daytime curfew tickets issued in Los Angeles between 2004 and 2009 went to Latino or black students. Together, these students are 77 percent of the student population.

The Center created maps showing that ticketing was concentrated around lower-income Latino and black neighborhood schools. The data also indicated that not one of the more than 13,000 students ticketed during those years by the Los Angeles School Police was identified as white, although whites are 13 percent of that district's population.

Students who arrive late but in cars with parents driving have escaped ticketing because they are with their parents and not in violation of the daytime curfew.

Maceo Bradley was 15 when he arrived late to Locke High School in December 2010 on foot. He was delayed, he said, because he got caught up looking for some school fundraising material he felt pressured to hand in that day. He reported to the office when he arrived more than half an hour late, and when an attendant told him to go on to class an officer ordered him to stop and wrote him a ticket.

"I had never had an interaction with police, at least not negative, until then," said Bradley, who is black. He missed much of two days of school to go to court once, and then again 60 days later. His mother also had to miss work both days. He later stayed home one day, he said, when he feared he would be late again.

Gabriel Saldana, Bradley's schoolmate, said he arrived an hour late one day, also in December 2010, because the first bus he catches was late and he missed a connecting bus. As he walked up to school, an officer told him to stop and wrote him a ticket. "He asked me for my thumbprint," Saldana said. "I was shocked. But what am I going to do? Say no and end up in handcuffs?"

Manuel Criollo, an organizer with the Labor Community Strategy Center, praised Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck and Los Angeles School Police Chief Steven Zipperman for their willingness to listen to complaints and issue new guidelines.

But in light of the way Amezcua and his cousin were allegedly treated -- after Zipperman's directive -- Criollo co-signed the complaint this month against officers. The complaint accuses the officers of violating the chief's new policy as well as alleged "unreasonable and excessive" search, seizure and physical restraint.

On Jan. 13, when Amezcua and his cousin appeared in court, as required, their tickets were dismissed because the court officer found that they were headed to school. The boys were obviously pleased. But they did have to miss school to go to court.

Continue this story and read more investigations at iWatch News

Bill Ong Hing: Prop 8 Case and the Message for Immigration Reform

2012-02-10T15:37:16Z

The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision striking down California's Proposition 8 attempt to take away marital rights from same-sex couples sends a strong immigration-reform message to Congress: it's time to allow U.S. citizens lawfully married to same-sex partners the opportunity to apply for lawful immigrant status. Under current law, prospective immigrants who want to immigrate through marriage can only do so if they are parties to a heterosexual relationship.

The history of the treatment of gays and lesbians under U.S. immigration laws is sordid. Beginning in 1917 with language directed at persons who were of "psychopathic inferiority" or "afflicted with psychopathic personality," Congress targeted gays and lesbians for immigration exclusion. Legislators reaffirmed their malevolence in 1965 with language excluding those with "sexual deviation." The constitutionality of the exclusion of homosexuals was upheld in Boutilier v. INS (1967), a deportation case. Even though Clive Boutilier had become a lawful immigrant, the Supreme Court determined that the legislative history of the exclusion laws indicated "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that Congress intended to exclude immigrants who were homosexuals via the "psychopathic personality" provision. As a result, the Court order Mr. Boutilier deported, because prior to his entry in the United States when he was twenty-one years old, he had engaged in homosexual activity. Since he was excludable at the time of his immigration, he could now be deported. After lengthy administrative battles within the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Public Health Service as well as judicial challenges, the exclusion ground finally was removed in 1990.

However, immigrant visas (green cards) for spouses U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents continue to be limited to spouses of the opposite sex. Ironically, in another Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision back in 1981 (Adams v. Howerton), the court ruled that the term "spouse" as used in the Immigration and Nationality Act was limited to marriages involving heterosexual relations. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for that limitation because "homosexual marriages never produce offspring, because they are not recognized in most, if in any, states, or because they violate traditional and often prevailing social mores." Even though times have changed since 1981, the Adams v. Howerton interpretation of the immigration laws prevails. As a result, the threat to deport the foreign national partner in such marriages continue. For example, Anthony Makk, an Australian citizen married to U.S. citizen Bradford Wells, only recently received a deportation reprieve. Makk, who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse, was ordered deported last summer, but has been permitted to remain another two years. Wells previously told the San Francisco Chronicle:

I'm married just like any other married person in this country.... At this point, the government can come in and take my husband and deport him. It's infuriating. It's upsetting. I have no power, no right to keep my husband in this country. I love this country, I live here, I pay taxes and I have no right to share my home with the person I married.

The Obama administration announced last summer that "prosecutorial discretion" could be exercised to halt the deportation of prospective immigrants in same-sex relations (along with DREAM Act students and others). However, the results have been inconsistent, and some ICE officers have been outspoken in their criticism of these internal orders. As a result, U.S. citizens and lawful residents with same-sex partners who have overstayed nonimmigrant visas or who are otherwise undocumented immigrants live in constant fear that their partner may be deported. True, the Obama folks have spoken out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a relevant statement. But we need specific legislation to resolve the issue once and for all.

The way out of this inequity is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA would allow U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the United States. The bill (and its predecessor) has been introduced into every subsequent Congress since the year 2000. Every year support has increased, and in the last Congress, more co-sponsors than ever before were garnered. In the 111th Congress (2009-2010), there was a record-breaking 135 co-sponsors in the House. And today there are more than 20 co-sponsors in the Senate. UAFA would amend the immigration laws by simply adding the term "permanent partner" in sections where "spouse" appears, thus ensuring that a non-citizen permanent partner may receive the same immigration benefits that a non-citizen spouse now receives.

Can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision lead the way to this much-need social justice reform? Certainly not alone. As much as anyone, I am skeptical that a single court decision or lawsuit can bring about lasting social change. But the decision is an important sign of the times that invites all of us as well as our Congressional leaders to push for reform sooner rather than later. There is no turning back on the eventuality that UAFA will be enacted.

Marshall Fine: Movie Review: Chico & Rita

2012-02-10T14:34:00Z

The pickings among American animated features are so slim this year that they've allowed foreign-language animated films to slip into the category. But unlike American animated films, these aren't kiddie cartoons.

Instead, they're adult works of cinematic art like Chico & Rita, a love story that covers decades and continents, telling a distilled version of the 20th century history of jazz in about 90 minutes.

Or at least one strand of jazz history. But that strand touches on everyone from Woody Herman to Cuban legend Chano Pozo to Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker and Thelonius Monk.

At the center of the story is a pianist, Chico, and a singer, Rita. When they meet in Havana in 1948, Rita is a singer with another band; Chico lures her to his side by filling in for a sick pianist for a Woody Herman performance at Havana's hottest club.

But Chico is a player -- and Rita is a climber, someone ready to hop on the next rocket that will take her to New York, Hollywood and beyond. She even tries to take Chico along with her -- but he chooses that moment to get drunkenly jealous of her career-advancing flirtation with a visiting impresario.

The story hops forward in time, following Chico as he becomes the go-to pianist for Cuba's biggest touring musical artists until his path crosses Rita's in New York. But it takes longer still -- and political comeuppances for both artists -- before they eventually catch up with each other at the right time.

The plot is easy-going and almost minimal, the backdrop to their musical fantasies coming true. They are like sidemen to the history happening in front of them, until those moments when history hauls off and slaps them down.

The music -- a blend of bebop, Afro-Cuban and cool jazz -- carries this film along, giving it wings even when there's not a lot of story happening. But make no mistake: This is a movie for adults, a story of love and passion and human weakness, told over several decades.

It's got a look that's part tropical, part New York graphic-design, as though filmmakers Tono Errando, Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal had animated drawings by Milton Glaser. There's a fluid quality to the hand-drawn images that gives off a surprising warmth.

Chico & Rita is like a graphic novel of a romantic drama, set to music that entices and inspires. It's the grown-up choice to win this year's Oscar for animated feature.

Find more reviews, interviews and commentary on my website.

Noel Alumit: The Korean International Art Show Showcases Eclectic Collection

2012-02-09T21:58:00Z

LA Artcore produces The Korean International Art Show, gathering some of the finest artists from Korea to show in Los Angeles. The eclectic work presents a wide range of mediums and voices. Buoyant and colorful, these deceptively pleasant pieces provide a glimpse into Korean creativity.

Curator Wonsil Kim provides some much needed answers about the event taking place at LA Artcore's Brewery Annex.

1. What themes are you hoping to explore with this show?

The main idea of the show is to present art from Korea. Traditional fine art in Korea is Chinese brush with sumi ink on rice paper or silk, and some artists have worked that way.

At the same time contemporary art is prevalent and very active in Korea. For example, two artists show oriental paintings in the show, but those were developed in a contemporary style. Another major artist's work is with paint, but he presents his concept with a projector. Korean art is not different from what artists in America are doing, but they have a sense of Korea in their sub consciousness and their genes.

2. How did you go about choosing the artists?

The show is organized with a variety of work, such as sculpture, painting, installation and fiber art, etc. The artists were chosen who best represent their medium.

3. If there was one thing the audience should take away from the show, what would you hope that to be?

The artists are from Korea, but they want to be seen as artists who make an effort to be good artists. They are working toward their goals like any other artist in the world. The difference is just region. They do not want the audiences to view them with the fixed idea that they are only Korean artists.

4. Do you think the leadership change in North Korea will somehow affect the worldview of artists in South Korea?

No. After the Korean War, the leadership has changed several times in North Korea, but the main idea is still communism. Korea has been in a cold war up until this time. The tension is sometimes high or easy but it has always existed. Therefore, artists in South Korea have not changed. If the leadership changes to democracy, that will be a different story.

5. What are some of the vast differences and similarities between American and Korean artists?

Similarities are that all artists make an effort at being creative and try to survive on creativity.
They are always concerned about the origins of their work and their way of expression.
Art is a language that is their own. On the other hand, that language should be worldwide.
The vast difference is the way of expression. People who are not artists might not be aware of it. Many American artists explain their idea or emotion directly onto their work, so their work is seen as strong and powerful.

Korean artists show their work indirectly, such as use softer colors or lines. They present an emotional, soulful tune under the quiet and calm surface of their work. However, come closer and look carefully: people can feel the meaning under the surface of the art work.

The show closes Feb. 16, 2012
LA Artcore Brewery Annex
650A South Ave. 21, Los Angeles, CA 90031

Jen Grisanti: Moving Into the Greater Good of Your Story

2012-02-09T20:11:58Z

In any story, your primary goal as the writer is to make your audience feel you in your story. You can make your story more universal by looking at the goal and the stakes in story from an external, internal and philosophical viewpoint. In story as in life, as time passes, we evolve from our successes and our losses. We take the time to process our pain and move forward. When you experience and write your story through the lens of the ego, the spirit and the philosophical, you add depth and connection for your audience.

When looking at story, I like writers to think that the ego represents the external goal and the spirit represents the internal goal. I tell writers to conceptualize that for the first three quarters of their story, their central character is responding from their ego and for the last quarter of their story, the character is responding from their spirit. What I didn't realize is that I was missing an important part of this equation, the philosophical part. After hearing Michael Arndt speak at The Austin Film Festival in 2010, I learned about the idea of the philosophical and it has added an extra layer to how I experience, analyze and interpret story. When we move into the philosophical part of story, we begin to think of how the achievement of the goal can affect the greater good and the betterment of others. Now, when I teach story, I teach the idea of going from the ego to the spirit to the philosophical part of story. I did a video blog on YouTube that speaks to this. This moves us even more into the universal experience of story.

This is perfectly illustrated in the film Up In The Air. In the beginning, George Clooney's character wants to achieve his goal for selfish reasons. His goal is to not get grounded so that he won't lose his single life in the air, represented symbolically by the empty backpack and thematically by the idea of detachment and non-commitment. Then, as the story progresses, he evolves. At the midpoint, we see him go into the water with the cardboard picture of his sister and her fiancé (representing his biggest fear, commitment.) Then, after his co-worker Natalie tells him that he puts himself in a cocoon of self-banishment, he begins to take action that moves him away from detachment and non-commitment into commitment and attachment. As he begins to move into spirit, he sees that his way of thinking is flawed. When he moves from spirit into the philosophical realm, his motivation for wanting to achieve the goal changes; if he doesn't achieve the goal, then the people who he and his company are firing, will find out via the computer versus in person. Suddenly, he wants to achieve the goal for the greater good versus himself.

Think about this idea of moving into a more philosophical consciousness in your own life. When you are younger, you want to achieve your goal(s) for external reasons often tied to title, credit, money, validation and public recognition. As you get older and go through some falls, you begin to connect with spirit. The universe nudges you sometimes in a kind way, and sometimes not. Things that used to be important to you are not as important anymore, perhaps because you found success and it didn't meet your expectations. You are humbled. You become more conscious of your life and the importance of certain moments. You begin to see achievement in a different way. You befriend the outcome versus attaching to it because it shifts. You see the bigger picture. You start thinking of how the achievement of your goal can benefit the greater good. You recognize the ego when it's there and you learn to utilize it to move you forward as you shift away from it. Start to draw from these experiences in your writing. It is about finding your truth and discovering your character's truth in the process.

I recently read the book Inside the TV Writer's Room by Lawrence Myers. It is excellent. I highly recommend it. Larry interviews top writers in television about being TV writers and the writing process that takes place in the writers room. There is a chapter titled, "How To Make Your Writing Personal; Or, Why You Must Take the 'Me' Out of it." There are some great anecdotes from Michael Chernuchin, Vanessa Taylor, Tim Kring, Chris Brancato, Hart Hanson, Carol Barbee, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Jason Katims, Laurie McCarthy, Kim Newton and Shawn Ryan. Larry writes, "Milch says, 'In our recollection as artists, an uninterrupted sequence of associations is made available to us which, if carried out, may generate a premise for a story. The premise for a story is our reward for digging in our psychological dirt." On the idea of "Taking the Pain Out of the Past," Milch quotes a teacher of his who says that, "This process that we artists undertake is the process by which everything which seems merely fanciful and is imprisoned in the past, in its seeming unrecoverability, is once again brought to life and conjugated into the future tense of story." Larry sums it up best: "So, why is truth important? Ultimately, the creative process must be transformative for both artist and audience; otherwise it is merely an exercise in vanity or craft. Without transformation, the journey itself becomes pointless. Why end up where you started if you haven't grown in the process?"

Evan Wolfson: After The Prop 8 Victory, What's Next?

2012-02-09T20:03:38Z

On Tuesday, Feb. 7, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that Proposition 8, the anti-gay measure that stripped gay and lesbian couples in California of the freedom to marry, is unconstitutional. Yesterday, Feb. 8, the Washington legislature passed a marriage bill that will go to the governor's desk for her signature. And today, we look at the work ahead to ensure that all loving and committed couples are able to share in the meaning and protections of marriage.

The Ninth Circuit's constitutional ruling -- powerful, thoughtful, precise -- made three critical points: first, that marriage matters to everyone, including gay and lesbian couples; second, that it is wrong to single out any group of Americans and strip away rights; and third, that California had no legitimate or sufficient reason for taking away the freedom to marry from one set of loving and committed couples.

The majority held: "[W]e emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of 'marriage.' That designation is important because 'marriage' is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults." For the nearly 100,000 gay and lesbian couples in California, all of whom are there for one another through the joyous and not-so-joyous moments of life, taking care of one another in tough times (and a particularly tough economy), this reminder that marriage matters could not be more true. After all, as the court wrote, "We are excited to see someone ask, 'Will you marry me?'... Certainly it would not have the same effect to see 'Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?'"

Reviewing the weak and -- as shown at trial -- evidence-free claims made to shore up Prop 8, the Ninth Circuit panel found that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Litigation challenging constitutional violations by politicians or even -- to use America's Founders' phrase "the tyranny of the majority" -- is a historic and legitimate part of the checks and balances that preserve our freedoms and advance our country's march toward liberty and justice for all. But elected officials, like judges, take an oath to uphold the Constitution -- as the Washington House of Representatives did yesterday when it passed a freedom to marry bill that will make Washington the seventh state to end the restriction on marriage for gay and lesbian couples and, counting the District of Columbia, the fifth to do so through legislative action. New Jersey's legislature is also moving on a freedom to marry bill, a marriage bill was introduced in Maryland in January, and yesterday Illinois legislators introduced a bill, as well. And in Maine, families and advocates blocked by a hostile governor and legislature have filed over 105,000 signatures, putting the question of ending the denial of the freedom to marry on the November ballot.

Building a critical mass of states is one of the three tracks of Freedom to Marry's "Roadmap to Victory" national strategy -- the strategy that has brought our country and cause so far, so fast. Last year, with our historic triumph in New York, we more than doubled the number of Americans living in a state where same-sex couples share in the freedom to marry; once the work in California and Washington is complete, we will have doubled that number again -- to more than 25 percent of the American people. On the other two tracks of the Roadmap, we are cultivating federal support and growing the national majority for marriage. In order to keep winning court cases as well as legislative and electoral battles, Freedom to Marry knows that we must make the same strong case for marriage in the court of public opinion as our advocates are making in courts of law. By following the Roadmap on all three tracks, together we create the climate that emboldens and empowers public officials and judges (and Supreme Court justices) to do the right thing.

In Washington, D.C., Freedom to Marry's federal program is focused on elevating the conversation around marriage, getting decision makers to stop acting like it's 1996 and instead understand how many hearts and minds have changed, and how much progress the freedom to marry has made, as we enter 2012. Last week, in partnership with our colleagues at Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry launched the Respect for Marriage Coalition, bringing together over 50 diverse organizations, including the highly respected Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, to continue growing congressional support to pass our Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the discriminatory federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

And even as the Ninth Circuit ruling may possibly go up on appeal, likewise, a number of important lawsuits challenging DOMA are working their way through the courts. Any one of these cases, or one that has yet to be filed, could make its way to the Supreme Court. We don't know which or when, or who will be on the Court when a case gets there, but the clock is ticking, adding urgency to our need to get more wins on the board, as called for in the Roadmap.

With so much at stake, each of us can and must play a role in ending marriage discrimination -- and our moment is now. Find out what you can do in your state by clicking here, and check if your members of Congress are cosponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act here; then take action by emailing your lawmakers. And if your mayor is not yet one of the more than 130 Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, please sign or start a petition here.

In explaining why marriage matters, and why separate or lesser legal recognition is no substitute for the freedom to marry, the Ninth Circuit wrote, "We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries." Together we are winning the freedom to marry nationwide, and, if we redouble and refuel our movement on all three tracks of the Roadmap to Victory, together we will have a lot of celebrating to do.

Nathan Robinson: Pomona Firings Show the Paradox of Immigrant Labor Organizing

2012-02-09T18:48:19Z

As the New York Times tells it, the firing of 16 Pomona College dining hall staff over alleged documentation violations appears to be a story about the harsh policies facing America's undocumented workers. But it is also a story about labor, and the growing difficulty of organizing for improvement in working conditions among those most vulnerable to exploitation. The Pomona workers' situation illustrates the need not only for humane reforms in immigration policy, but the need for sensible national labor policies generally, beginning with a revival of the moribund Employee Free Choice Act.

Understanding the firings requires understanding the tense labor climate of Pomona College during the last few years. The troubles did not begin in November, when the college summarily eliminated a group of veteran workers over their employment paperwork, or in the months previous, when the college announced it was hiring white-shoe law firm Sidley Austin to review immigration statuses. In fact, disputes between the college and its dining staff had been going on for over a decade, with the college persistently being accused by its workers of "disrespect, understaffing, inadequate medical care, and unfair firing policies" as well as unpredictable hours and mistreatment by management. Several attempts had been made at unionization before the founding by staff of Workers for Justice in 2010. Since then, the WFJ organization has been holding rallies, strikes, and boycotts in an attempt to gain recognition.

The College has acknowledged some of the complaints against it. "I cannot guarantee [abuses of overtime pay] never happened," college President David Oxtoby said. Administrators also introduced some reforms in response, such as guaranteeing a full year's-worth of work and raising wages. But at each stage, workers have had to fight hard for their gains. The college has repeatedly been accused of using intimidation tactics to stop the effort. In 2010, President Oxtoby sent a message to the school questioning "whether a union is necessary," and reminding employees of the privileges they enjoyed. Now, the National Labor Relations Board has issued the college with a formal complaint arising out of a policy banning dining hall workers from talking to students, introduced after students began to help coordinate the unionization drive.

And so when the firings came, it was hardly surprising to those who had been following the campaign. Predictably, the college has vigorously denied any connection between the dismissals and the dining hall workers' push. Yet the investigation and firings were conveniently timed. In the months just prior, Workers for Justice had rejected the college's proposal for a union election in which the administration would exercise only "limited neutrality." Furthermore, Sidley Austin, the law firm that investigated workers' immigration documents, specializes in union-busting, advertising on its website that "for clients who desire to remain union-free, we advise on pro-active steps to reduce the likelihood of union organizing drives and enhance the likelihood of defeating any campaigns that are initiated."

The Pomona College firings illustrate the core dilemma faced by contemporary organizers: those with the greatest need for unionization are also those with the least bargaining power, who have little recourse when retaliation occurs. With the constant threat of dismissal and deportation looming, all incentives on undocumented workers are toward keeping one's head down and tolerating even gross abuses.

Some organizing success is nevertheless possible. In his book Immigrants, Unions, and the New U.S. Labor Market, Brooklyn College professor Immanuel Ness cites the inspiring unionization struggles of Mexican greengrocers and West African supermarket deliverymen in New York City during the late 1990's. But without reviving the national discussion on sensible labor policy, these efforts will involve almost impossible upward climbs.

In 2009, President Obama told the AFL-CIO in that "we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act." Since then, the Act has been buried, and passage becomes an unlikelier prospect with every passing session. Yet its necessity for working people has not diminished. One of the reasons the Pomona workers faced such difficulty in their attempt to collectively bargain was the NLRB's drawn-out and convoluted election process. The Pomona workers had pushed repeatedly for the kind of "card check" balloting that would have been codified in the EFCA, but were met with unwavering opposition by college administrators.

Other protections could also have helped in Pomona. Employers who fire organizing workers should have a greater burden to prove that the firing was unrelated, so that Pomona would have faced a presumptive labor practice violation over the dismissals. And greater deference should be given to employee allegations of harassment and intimidation, which abounded at Pomona but did not rise to the level sufficient to sustain a NLRB complaint.

Fixing immigration and fixing labor are inseparable. Immigration reform could give increasing freedom to workers to organize without fear, but without vigorous protections on organizing, employers still hold all the cards.

Jed Kolko: Trulia: Best-Kept Secret Neighborhoods Across America

2012-02-09T17:41:34Z

House hunters typically don't venture too far from where they live today. Most people look for homes for sale or rentals across town, not across the country. However, more than one-third of searches are to homes at least 100 miles away. And as anyone who's had to move knows, finding the best place to live isn't easy -- especially if you're moving to an unfamiliar place.

Using the same analysis behind our Metro Movers report -- a forward-looking housing report that starts with where people are today and offers insights on where they want to live tomorrow -- we found that out-of-towners tend to look in name-brand neighborhoods such as Tribeca in New York, Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, Miami Beach in Miami, Pacific Heights in San Francisco and Georgetown in Washington, D.C.

But if you're moving to a new city, maybe you want to find the neighborhoods that locals know but aren't nationally famous. (Or maybe you're a local trying to avoid the transplants and carpetbaggers.) These are what we call a city's "best-kept secret" neighborhoods. They're not secrets to most local house hunters, but outsiders looking to move in typically overlook them.

To find out which neighborhoods are the locals' best-kept secrets, I looked at the zip codes within a city where locals account for more search activity than other similarly priced neighborhoods where out-of-towners tend to search. In general, pricier neighborhoods that are more famous tend to get more attention from non-locals. But many of our best-kept secret neighborhoods are pricey, too: many have been recently gentrified or redeveloped, while some have been quietly upscale for decades.

Using this methodology, here's our list of America's best-kept secret neighborhoods.

U.S. City	Best-Kept Secret Neighborhood	Zip Code
New York	Hunters Point (Long Island City, Queens)	11101
Los Angeles	La Brea / Hancock Park	90036
Chicago	West Town / Wicker Park	60622
San Francisco	Diamond Heights / Glen Park	94131
Miami	Key Biscayne	33149
Washington DC	Logan Circle	20005
Boston	Fort Point / Seaport District	02210
Houston	Spring Branch East	77055
Dallas	Greenway Parks	75209
Seattle	Sunset Hill / North Beach	98117
Philadelphia	Bella Vista / Southwark	19147
Atlanta	Virginia-Highland	30306

Eduardo Stanley: The Rise And Fall Of Spanish-Language Weekly Newspapers In California

2012-02-09T16:48:59Z

FRESNO, Calif. -- In late December, the Spanish-language newspaper El Sol, published by the Visalia Times Delta -- a daily newspaper owned by Gannett -- announced that it would close after eight years and a circulation of 15,000 weekly readers.

The cited reason for the closure of the Visalia, Calif., newspaper was poor advertising revenue.

Across the country and Spanish and English language publishing, print publications' bottom lines have been decimated by a critical combination of factors. In the wake of the economic downturn -- with California being hit particularly hard -- and the widening reach of the internet, few print publications have been spared budget cuts, layoffs and even closures.

But many in the industry anticipated that given the rocketing growth of the Latino population in states like California -- and consequently, the Spanish language market -- newspapers speaking to this audience would be a sustainable investment.

El Sol's potential audience -- and consumer reach -- has increased steadily, according to 2010 census data. In Tulare County, where the newspaper circulated, the Latino population increased by 10 percent in the last 10 years, becoming 60 percent of the 500,000 residents in the county, situated between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

In the mid-1990s, Spanish-language weeklies created by English-language dailies began to emerge in nearly every city in California's Central Valley.

Commercial interest was the driving force behind the decision. To sell advertising revenue, why not charge a bit extra for a "combo" newspaper package in both English and Spanish? Considering the burgeoning Latino population, at first glance, the idea was not far fetched. Thus emerged El Californiano, published by the Californian, of Bakersfield; Noticiero Semanal, published by the Porterville Recorder, of Porterville; Las Noticias del Valle, published by the Hanford Sentinel, of Hanford; El Tiempo, published by the Merced County Times, of Merced, although the newspaper later became an independent; Vida en el Valle, published by the Fresno Bee of Fresno; El Sol 2000, published by the Modesto Bee, of Modesto; and El Sol of Visalia, among others.

Of these Spanish-language, or bilingual newspapers that depended on English-language dailies, the only survivors are the Noticiero Semanal, which went from a 26,000-circulation paper to 8,000 and is limited to eastern Tulare County, and Vida en el Valle, which began printing 170,000 copies weekly after integrating with El Sol 2000 of Modesto. It should be noted, though, that many of these English language weeklies that published the Spanish-language dailies have suffered as well.

But not considered here are the independent family newspapers, a species also on the brink of extinction, as demonstrated by the 2008 demise of San Joaquin Valley's oldest weekly, El Mexicalo -- published out of Bakersfield -- after almost a quarter-century in existence.

Some inside the industry believe that beyond the economic difficulties of the industry on the whole, the acute suffering of the California Spanish-language daily may be more political than financial.

But why have even papers under the "protection" of an established major publisher failed or faced difficulties?

"Those who established these newspapers (the English-language dailies) saw it only as business, that's why when things went wrong, they simply closed," said Miguel Baez, former editor of Noticiero Semanal. "It's hard to put a face on a project like that if your only interest is money. If you don't believe in the project, how are you going to promote it?"

"There are no strategies to promote the publication, let alone to garner publicity," Baez added. He said the larger papers were unable to sell their "little brother," the Spanish-language weeklies. The strategy of selling "combos" advertising packages meant that advertisers paid mere cents to run the same ad in the Spanish-language papers. This commercial strategy demonstrated the difficulty that English-language newspaper publishers had selling advertising in Spanish.

Rosario Ortiz said she gave up writing despite two state awards and being considered an "emerging star" in Central California's Latino journalism community. "I left a bit disillusioned," she said. "How is it possible that, with such a broad audience, these newspapers disappear?"

Ortiz used to write for El Popular, El Californiano and other papers in Bakersfield. She believes that the closure of newspapers that are dependent on English publications is also politically motivated.

"I think that papers such as The Californian were criticized by their own allies for issuing a Spanish-language newspaper (the bilingual El Californiano, which circulated for less than three years) and that influenced its closure."

And it goes even further, she said.

"Those that have the power -- supervisors in charge of the English-language media -- tell you what to report, so you're out of touch with the community."

Both Baez and Ortiz acknowledge the importance of Spanish-language outlets in the Valley.

"Because this is a rural area, information outlets are fewer," Baez said.

Ortiz said a Spanish-language community paper is a necessity.

"Television in Spanish is an imitation of English-language television," she said. "We need a newspaper. We need to promote and participate in community dialogue."

Nicolas Kanellos, a professor of Hispanic studies at the University of Houston, also acknowledged the importance of a Spanish-language press. "The community needs this type of newspaper. It's part of the culture," he said, adding that "eliminating access to local news leaves people out of the system."

The report "The State of the Spanish Language Media 2010" from the Center for Spanish Language Media at the University of North Texas stated that newspaper advertising in these Spanish-language publications declined 25.3 percent from $103 million in 2008 to $77 million in 2009. National Hispanic magazine ad revenue declined 38.2 percent from $182 million in 2008 to $112.5 million in 2009. In 2010, the same study observed a spike of only 1.5 percent in advertising revenue. The report said that the reduction in revenue forced publishers to take steps to cuts costs, ranging from staff reductions to cutting the numbers of publications days. These changes are the result of a weakened economy, not a waning audience.

The growth of Spanish-language television -- including access through cable and satellite outlets to channels from Latin American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and others -- demonstrates the growing demand for Spanish-language media, according to experts.

During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and '70s, the Chicano movement pressured media outlets to integrate Latino personnel on staff.

Even in the early '80s there were fewer English-language television broadcasters willing to contract Latino reporters and news anchors for Latino or other ethnic news.

Today, however, publishers have sought to tap into the growing Latino market.

Gradually Latinos appeared to gain ground in mass media. Hispanic newspapers began to emerge, whether independent or supported consequently by demand placed on English-language media. But many of the newspapers that appeared during this time are now disappearing.

"In general, most of these newspapers no longer exist, and journalists who wrote for these outlets found work elsewhere," Kanellos said. "Now, there is a shortage of Latinos in media companies."

The importance of a Spanish-language press in California is underscored by the strong historic ties between the Southwestern United States and Mexico. Increasing trade with Latin America keeps the connection alive. In 2011, two airlines -- Aeromexico and Volaris -- began direct flights from Fresno to Guadalajara.

Edward Goldman: Artistic Execution of 'Dear Leaders'

2012-02-09T15:35:10Z

Most of the Soviet dissidents of the yesteryear would immediately recognize the song about the phantom haunting Europe, the phantom of Communism. I wonder what their reaction would be to the punchy and provocative exhibition of political posters by Russian artists at the Craft and Folk Art Museum. These hand-painted posters from the late 1980s and early 1990s were made during the tumultuous years of Glasnost and Perestroika, when Gorbachev attempted to save the Soviet Union from collapse.

During the Stalin era, it would be totally suicidal for Soviet artists to make posters such as these on display here. Like the one with the moustache of Stalin squeezed between the beard of Karl Marx and the eyebrows of Leonid Brezhnev. And all this topped with a slice of Lenin's bald head. Selected from the permanent collection of the small, feisty Wende Museum in Culver City, these posters draw blood and make merciless fun of "dear leaders" such as Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and Marx.

A few weeks ago, I talked about the gigantic sculpture of one of these leaders, Vladimir Lenin, which proudly stands on the corner of 4th and La Brea. Made by the Gao Brothers, dissident Chinese artists, it pokes fun at Chairman Mao, whose tiny naked figure balances on the top of Lenin's smooth, shiny head. One wonders if the simultaneous appearance in Los Angeles of all these Communist phantoms is just a coincidence, or... is there something nefarious in the air?

At this point, I believe, we are ready to face a series of whimsical, slightly scary sculptural portraits by Danny First at Maloney Fine Art. These bronze and clay heads have a strong resemblance to each other, like cousins and brothers, products of family inbreeding. Who are these amusingly ugly creatures, who at first glance make you wince, but who also have something so vulnerable about them that you almost want to protect them? Maybe even to adopt one.

But, there was one exhibition I saw over the weekend that made me, at least for a moment, forget about all the imperfections of the world. I am talking about the impeccably installed, abstract sculptural paintings at the new Matthew Marks Gallery, done by 88-year-old -- no, let me take that back -- 88-year-young Ellsworth Kelly. What an amazing artist.

Banner image: Political posters on view in Deconstructing Perestroika. Photos courtesy Wende Museum

Edward Goldman is an art critic and the host of Art Talk, a program on art and culture for KCRW 89.9 FM. To listen to the show and hear Edward's charming Russian accent, visit http://www.kcrw.com/media-player/mediaPlayer2.html?type=audio&id=at120207artistic_execution_o.