The Charlotte Laws Blog

Natalie Portman’s $600 Carton of Eggs: The Black Swan and The Chicken

2012-01-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

(Actor Jason Alexander with one of Natalie Portman's eggs)

You may have heard of the goose who laid the golden egg. This time, the goose is a chicken named Mae Poulet, and her eggs sell for $50 a pop. All proceeds go to a nonprofit organization that benefits poultry in need.

I adopted Mae a year ago from Craigslist. The ad read, “Free. Would make a good dinner.”

“It’s either you or some lady who wants to make chicken stroganoff,” I was told when I phoned.

I am an animal rights advocate like Natalie Portman; and recently heard of the vegan actress’ dilemma: she wanted to consume eggs during her pregnancy. Portman is a compassionate soul, so I wanted to help her with a compassionate alternative, plus factory farm eggs are filled with toxins that could harm an unborn child.

I offered to provide Natalie with eggs from Mae and the other five, happy hens who roam my half-acre property in Los Angeles. The others were adopted from public animal shelters. My hens will never be killed even though chickens can live 10 – 15 years and typically stop laying after three. Commercial egg businesses usually slaughter them at one and half, which is equivalent to killing a person at age seven. It is a fowl situation indeed.

Chickens are probably the most exploited and tortured species on earth. Each hen spends her entire life in darkness crammed into a space the size of half a sheet of 8 x 11 paper. She is treated like a disposable food machine. And when baby boy chicks are born, they are ground up alive. The factory farm has no use for them because they don’t make good meat. The whole thing is heart-breaking.

I put an extreme price tag on the eggs to mirror the extreme conditions that hens endure; plus I want to raise funds for chicks in need. However, Portman need not crow about the high price, at least for the first dozen, because two, generous LA businessmen have already paid the tab.

Members of the public are invited to buy eggs for Natalie. Proceeds will go to Animal Acres, Farm Sanctuary and the League for Earth and Animal Protection. Donors names will be listed on this blog at their request.

The first $600 carton of 12 eggs is ready for delivery, but it seems Mae’s feathers will be ruffled if she cannot meet her favorite actress. She has always loved black swans.

From the perch on her nesting box, Mae whispers, “Tell Natalie to come up and see me some time.”

Please join my Facebook page at the link below! Please click "like" on the page! Thanks!

2010-12-15T23:00:00.000-08:00

Charlotte Laws likes

Charlotte Laws

Oprah, Me and Reality TV

2010-06-28T16:56:00.000-07:00

Did I botch the casting call? Is my 16-page application lining Mark Burnett’s bird cage? Is my piddling number of video votes causing late night laughter among production staffers? These twenty-somethings, incidentally, are way too young and thin to be making weighty decisions, such as who gets to be on TV.

I submitted my three-minute video online--as did thousands of others around the country--with hopes of winning a spot on Oprah Winfrey’s new reality program, Your Own Show. Ten contestants will compete to host their own television show on Oprah’s new network, OWN.

To increase my chances, I also auditioned in person in Laguna Niguel, California. By 6 am, the line topped 1000; it looked like a string of hungry ants marching towards a single breadcrumb.

A bouncy female applicant with a two foot billboard of Oprah on her head told me she was channeling the star. She said she stalked Perez Hilton for two years before landing a job with him. “Hire me. I’m broke,” was the line that finally dazzled him into submission.

I had no signage, no aptitude for channeling and no patience for stalking. I would have to work “in a suit” as they say; in other words, “without props.” I stood with 11 other hopefuls in front of casting director Scott Salyers and pitched my ideas in my usual Italian way, hands flying around like a traffic cop on speed. I am only one quarter Italian. If I were 100%, I probably would have slapped my competitors into San Diego.

My show is about news and current events, but my real strength is my interesting life, from my traumatic childhood and fight against racism to my long line of intriguing occupations. I have been a private detective, cab driver, aerobics instructor, Los Angeles Commissioner, FBI lecturer, backup singer for an Elvis imitator, and author of a popular book on how to get invited to the Academy Awards or meet the President. I also have extensive experience as a television commentator; coincidentally my first TV appearance was on Oprah’s show in the late 1980’s.

Casting director Scott was as hard to read as a calculus textbook. I left unsure whether my pitch had hit the right note with him.

But later that day I received word that I been chosen for a callback. An email followed, instructing me to come to a certain address, to enter the back door only, and to speak to no one. The cryptic message could have doubled as a ransom note or CIA communiqué.

I tiptoed into the audition warehouse where I encountered a college-age kid who asked my name. I ignored him. This must be a test, I thought, and I will not succumb.

“Excuse me. What’s your name?’ he asked a second time, then third.

Finally, I whispered, “I’m not supposed to talk to anyone.”

He whispered back, “It’s ok. You can talk to me. I work here. I have to check you in.”

Other applicants, seated nearby, chuckled at my blunder. I had already gotten off on the wrong foot. Speaking of feet, I had mistakenly worn my cheap shoes, and a nail from the sole was beginning to pierce my right heel. They may say Payless now, but it’s pay later when you’re at a make-it-or-break-it audition and your foot gets skewered like a tomato at odds with a “Rock n Chop” knife set.

I gave my name to college boy and hobbled to my seat. There were two interviewers: a female and a male, both in their 20’s. The female spent lots of time with applicants, but the male--a no-nonsense dude named Dave--whisked people in and out as if he were a contestant on Minute to Win It. I was matched with Dave, which meant I needed to be in turbo mode.

Dave led me to a chairless room with a camera and announced. “I love to stand, even when I don’t have to. Donald Rumsfeld is the same way. I’m just like him, You know, the former Secretary of Defense.”

Rumsfeld’s name has been connected with torture. Guantanamo Bay interrogators would induce stress in prisoners by forcing them to remain standing in the same position for hours. Rumsfeld would shrug it off with an attitude of “Heck, no big deal. I stand 8 to 10 hours a day.”

Dave was my Rummy, and the room was my very own Guantanamo Bay. The good news was that I would be out of the joint before my foot could turn blue and fall off. The bad news was I had a minute to win it.

The on-camera interview got off to a rocky start when I was asked to state my age two times. Trust me, it’s an age I wouldn’t want to reveal once, let alone twice. All in all, it was a typical Hollywood audition: I assume I said all the wrong things and forgot to say all the right things. I was told I would hear in two weeks.

If a skinny college kid doesn’t call with good news, then I am a reality show reject. And frankly, I’ll blame the whole thing on the shoes.
________________

You can view and vote for Charlotte's audition video at this link.

Clowns, Casinos and Men Full of Cash

2010-02-17T17:09:00.000-08:00

I recently visited Las Vegas and found it had morphed from a hay ride into a bullet train, and from Hookers-ville into Kids R Us. When I lived there in 1980, it was all about high rollers, call girls, comps, 1950’s décor, being laid back and knowing everyone who worked on the strip. It was a small town in big city clothes. Today, freebies are rare, and fast food is plentiful. Billboards reveal “ostentation in overdrive” with flashing fluorescents and snappy video presentations. Casino tables are relative “dead zones,” so hotels charge for everything else, from shows to monorail rides. It’s a supersized theme park with focus on the family.

Thirty years ago, I might have stumbled upon the Dirty Old Man Delegation, the Boozers Brigade or the Strippers Symposium. But during this trip I naturally found a kiddie-land favorite: the Annual Clown Convention, which was held at the Orleans hotel. I confronted a sea of painted faces, kooky costumes and bulbous, red noses; and got to root for my favorite contestant in the “Top Clown” competition. Most had “silly billy” names, such as Cricket, Snickers and Krinkles.

“I love kids. I had three for breakfast,” veteran clown Jim Howle told five children sitting before him on a makeshift stage. He pulled paper from his shoe, “Here’s a footnote.”

A pink clown whispered to me, “I’m a beginner and earn a living as a waitress and construction worker.” A brightly dressed Charlie Chaplin said, “I’m full time with a business license. I do 300 performances each year.”

Tables in the back of the room offered novelty items for sale from lime green wigs to Technicolor costumes, magic tricks and books. “Here Comes the Clown,” “Talk like a Dummy” and “Stop that Heckler” were a few of the titles.

As I watched clowns compete, I remembered my first visit to Las Vegas in 1977 when I was a sweet seventeen. I surely looked underage with my bouncy pigtails and running shorts as I trotted through Caesar’s Palace where I was staying with my aunt. An “over 60” man named Fred stopped me.

“I just won 13-thousand dollars gambling and would like to buy you a diamond bracelet. No strings attached.”

“Yeah, right.” I flashed a skeptical grin.

Fred led me to a hotel shop where I was gifted an $800 trinket. Then he wanted to gamble and nudged me from table to table stuffing chips in my purse, which I later tallied to be $2900. After this, he bought me clothing totaling $4000 at a Caesar’s boutique and topped off the two hour adventure with the words, “Well, it was nice meeting you, young lady, but I’d better be going.”

I sprinted back to my room and dumped the loot at my aunt’s feet. She shook her head, “I wish I were young again.”

I wondered whether this was a common occurrence or a fluke. Did people just give away money in Las Vegas or did the gambling-town gods have a special crush on me?

My answer came a few days later when a man named Craig asked if I’d like to gamble with him. He was determined to hit the jackpot and stalked a row of slot machines like a 12-step program dropout, popping coins obsessively into one, then another and another. I agreed to play an adjacent row with a bucket of his coins. An hour later, I said good-bye, and Craig handed me a hundred dollar bill for my time, which I promptly showed my aunt.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s in Las Vegas, the generosity of strangers—or more specifically middle-aged men--was as predictable as buffets, headliners and showgirls; and the biggest recipients were those whose jobs involved tips. Small town Americans would relocate to Sin City for a year or two to accumulate big bucks, working as blackjack dealers, bartenders, bellhops, waitresses or even prostitutes. As a University of Nevada student, I met dozens of these folks, who outlined their ultimate goal: to return to their home state to buy property or start a business with their “winnings.”

Over the years, Vegas has shifted from big spenders to tourists in order to stay afloat. The scores of “high rollers” from the 1970’s and 1980’s have either stopped coming due to the deteriorating economy or have gotten snapped up by competitors, such as Indian casinos. Nineteen states permit casino gambling. The growing gap between the rich and the poor has statistically led to fewer wealthy folk, and thus fewer big time gamblers. Casino owners over-borrowed and overbuilt, and the city now has the highest foreclosure rate of any major metro area in the country and the second highest unemployment rate at 13 percent. In an effort to pinpoint a new and steady revenue stream, the family was targeted. Today, the city caters to mothers, fathers, kids and even clowns, who are mostly middle-income and careful with their cash.

Seventeen-year-olds looking for a golden gift from the gods are probably out of luck. A veteran Vegas waitress recently told me, “You used to be able to count on the kindness of strangers. Today, tips are probably the same as in any other big city. Men full of cash are a thing of the past.”

It’s My Party and I’ll Crash If I Want To

2009-12-04T10:35:00.000-08:00

Michaele and Tareq Salahi crashed more than a White House state dinner. Like other publicity stunt architects before them, they crashed through the barricade that mainstream media erected long ago to keep out common folks like you and me. With the advent of the Internet and reality TV, these barricades have been re-examined and reconfigured so that ordinary people can more easily get their 15 minutes of fame. With luck, perseverance and a crafty publicist, this can be parlayed into 15 years or more.

I am pleased that the media who once hoarded the most valuable commodities in America—information and ideas—have been forced to pull extra chairs to the table and share some of the bounty with the potato peelers in the kitchen. The backdoor has been unbolted, giving America’s “seemingly unremarkable” masses a chance to bypass the golden plated guest list and join the party.

After all, if William Hung—the kid who gained fame in 2004 for his painfully bad American Idol audition—can end up with a Wikipedia page, a fan site and a record deal, anyone can do it. Our “Reality TV-Internet” age means new career opportunities for those who might otherwise feel hopeless about a chance of fame and success.

Apparently, my car is the only one exhibiting the “Go Salahi” bumper sticker. In online articles and blogs, seething anger lashes out like flames from a pissed-off fire pit. Words like “narcissistic” and “superficial” are used to describe ordinary people who seek fame or reality show careers. One comment reads, “I’m tired of these stupid celebrities with no talent. I hear they get six figure incomes on Reality TV. That money could feed an entire village.” Maybe but that does not explain his anger because he has no problem with the executives or actors who make seven or eight figure incomes which could feed 100 villages.

I contend it takes a “je ne sais quoi” quality to be watchable, entertaining and catapult to stardom for merely “being you.” Appearing on reality TV is much like acting or hosting a show because the medium is highly scripted, despite appearances to the contrary. And it is a talent in itself to drum up a million followers on Youtube or amass a swarm of fans while competing on Survivor, Project Runway or Top Chef.

Capturing the attention of the media with relatively harmless publicity stunts is a highly paid skill. Every major corporation and celebrity utilizes the services of a public relations firm. The Rose Bowl, the Miss America Pageant and the Academy Awards all began as publicity stunts.

The Balloon Boy ploy wasn’t harmless. It wasted law enforcement’s time and taxpayer dollars but the verdict is out on the whether it will end like the Jerry Lewis movie, King of Comedy. In this flick--which solidifies the age-old message that “any publicity is good publicity”--an aspiring comic kidnaps a talk show host in order to get a few minutes of TV airtime so he can perform his act. The stunt lands the comic in jail for a short time, a small price to pay for the stardom and wealth he finds upon release.

The gate-crashing Salahis with their panache and chutzpah weren’t the first to maneuver past Secret Service. I have done the same thing. Twice.

In addition to gate-crashing numerous events and award shows in my late teens and early 20’s, and writing a “how to” book in 1988 called Meet the Stars, I crashed two “Secret Service-guarded” events.

The first time was to meet and interview President Reagan at an elite Walter Annenberg party in Palm Springs in the 1980’s. Like the Salahis, I went through a metal detector and my purse was checked. I got into the event by making friends with a White House employee a couple of days earlier and finagling an “invitation” to the affair. I say “invitation” because my name was never placed on the guest list. At the entrance to the event, the employee somehow convinced a Secret Service agent to give me entrance.

My second Secret Service encounter took place at a 2004 Senator John Kerry fundraiser in Los Angeles when he was the Democratic candidate for president. Some attendees had paid as much as $25,000 for the dinner and star-studded show. A few lucky ones including me were able to attend a very private party afterwards. Present were: Senator Kerry, Robert De Niro, Barbra Streisand, Ben Affleck, Neil Diamond, Billy Crystal, Ben Stiller, Jamie Foxx and Leonard Dicaprio, among others. Of the 50 or so people in the room all were well-known figures and their spouses or Secret Service agents. And me.

Like the Salahis who in the words of Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, went through “magnetometers and other levels of screening,” I underwent a rigorous check confirming I was weapon-free. But no one asked to see my ticket. I had escaped detection in the excitement of the moment and the collage of colorful party gowns. True, I had intentionally shimmied into the center of a group of the wealthiest donors who all seemed to be thinking, “Durn it, I paid big bucks for this shindig, and I’m not about to wait in line.”
During the past few years the Secret Service has protected the President and other officials at more than 10,000 events with 100% success. Apart from initial screenings, the organization has multiple security procedures in place, and I do not believe for one minute that someone with nefarious intent could gain entrance or cause harm.

According to studies conducted between 1998 and 2009, 30% of Americans (and 51% of 18- to 25- year olds) wish to be famous as do the same percentage of English, Germans and Chinese. But only 1 to 2 percent of these people seek fame for its own sake. Most are looking for fame to lead to a stable career, wealth, power, influence, social distinction, good works or a place in history.

Fame-seekers are not pathetic, shallow, self-centered souls as many would have you believe. Fame-seekers are your neighbors, your friends, your business associates. They are people who hope to feed their families, live the good life, benefit their communities and effect positive change. With fame one can be a positive influence. Feeding a hungry child as a private citizen is good but feeding a hungry child as a public figure is better because it can induce others to do the same.

Whatever you may think of it, finagling your way into a VIP event can be an effective stepping-stone and a means to a positive end. And regardless of security changes, the Salahis will not be the last inductees into the Party-Crashers Hall of Fame.

Religion vs. the Sprinkler Police

2009-10-02T08:49:00.000-07:00

Does your Rain Bird no longer fly? Are your PVC pipes feeling neglected? Has your city hung your lawn out to dry and given your timer a time-out? If so, you probably live in a place that restricts landscaping watering. Due to devastating dry spells, dozens of cities have implemented ordinances aimed at water conservation.

When I grew up in Atlanta, it was so rainy a fish could survive on land; but when I visited last year, I found straw-like lawns and a total watering ban. In Los Angeles, where I now reside, the City Council has implemented a partial ban: residents are restricted to two days per week for outdoor irrigation and no more than 15 minutes per watering station.

I understand the need to conserve and have always been a “waste not, water not” woman, whipping the faucet on and off while teeth cleaning as if water were pricey champagne. In my college dorm, I won the coveted “Snappy Shower Award,” and I treat my dishwasher like a roller-coaster ride: it doesn’t leave the station unless it’s full.

However, when it comes to my yard, a middle ground is unachievable if it means a dead ground. My religion and moral value system require healthy greenery; which in turn, benefit the animals and insects who depend on my yard for sustenance. I live in a fire hazard zone in Woodland Hills—the most sweltering part of LA--where watering two days per week is as effective as healing third degree burns with a Band-aid and where dead foliage is an invitation for flames to “come up and see me sometime.”

My lot—which abuts undeveloped acreage--may appear fully suburbanized, but it serves as an oasis for rabbits, bees, skunks, raccoons, coyotes, gophers, snakes, bees, owls, and birds of every kind. Saint Francis of Assisi would not want for feathered friends.

I am not a Christian like Assisi, but practice Jainism, which is often described as the world’s oldest living religion, originating in India around 500 BC. Adherents follow the principal of “ahimsa” or non-injury to all living beings. Although practically-speaking it is impossible to be perfect, a Jain does her best to make sure no living being is injured by her action or inaction. Compassion is extended to mammals and reptiles as well as flowers, grass, insects and trees. As a Jain, I have a duty to protect the life forms on my property, and any ordinance which interferes with this is at odds with my First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.

How interesting it would be for this water-related dispute to percolate into court. Santeria--a religion with Afro-Cuban roots which has approximately one million followers in the US—condones killing animals in ritual. In 1993, Santeria adherents in Hialeah, Florida won a “free exercise of religion” case: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religion and against a local ordinance, which sought to ban animal sacrifice. Although the case had an unfortunate outcome for nonhuman victims, it illustrates the power of the First Amendment. One must assume the Supreme Court would protect the critters in my yard under the same rationale used to deny them protection in Florida.

Apart from religion, my moral value system dictates that I maintain a verdant yard. I hold that all living beings have interests, as evidenced by their efforts to flourish and survive, and to disregard these interests would be arrogant, self-serving and speciesist. Speciesism is a form of prejudice, much like racism or sexism, in which humans deem themselves superior to other species. To adequately recognize the innate value of nonhumans—which policy-makers rarely do--and shake off speciesism, our democracy would need to be more like an omniocracy or government with representation and consideration for all living beings. An omniocratic system would, at the very least, be mindful of the needs of other species before intercepting their lifeline with an overly restrictive water ordinance.

Some LA City Councilmembers--as well as misguided environmentalists—suggest homeowners rip out their grass and lay synthetic turf in order to save H2O, despite the exorbitant cost. It is $7000 for 600 square feet. This would, of course, solidify Tinseltown’s image: plastic surgeons could have plastic yards, and every street could look like a movie set. But real grass is essential because it serves as a carbon offset, absorbing 13.2 million pounds of CO2 per year. One would have to plant and maintain 1861 trees for a decade to compensate for a football field of fake turf.

Artificial grass is not what I would call “environmental” or “animal friendly” with its lead-content problems, the extensive energy and raw materials needed to produce it, and the risk that synthetic materials may leak into the water table and that rubber infill crumbs may become airborne and inhaled. Installing make-believe grass is akin to moving your home office onto the driveway in order to save a lightbulb. In addition, horrifying images come to mind: rabbits ingesting green shag fibers and tiny life forms roasting under an airless blanket of toxins. Turf temperatures can climb to 160 degrees on summer days.

As a vegan, I could maintain a lush, English garden at my home and still use less water than a meat-eater in a condo, a fact the ordinance fails to take into account. It takes 300 gallons per day to produce vegetarian food, while it takes 13 times more--4,000 gallons--for a carnivore, the difference between night and day or a bathtub and a pool. This is because it is so costly water-wise to raise and feed each of the 55 billion farm animals slaughtered for food.

Apparently, not many sprinkler scofflaws or hose hogs exist; officials in both Los Angeles and Atlanta have revealed significant declines in water usage since their ordinances were put into place. There has been an 11% reduction in LA since June, and residents consume the same amount of water today as they did 25 years ago, despite a population increase of over one million people. Atlanta has realized a 20% reduction over the past eight years despite a population boom of 30%.

It is hoped Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities will continue to explore and implement conservation alternatives, when viable, such as desalinization processes, smart irrigation systems, recycled water programs, urine diversion toilets, groundwater replenishment systems and rainwater capture plans.

In the meantime, I hope you will conserve when you can. But don’t let the water ordinance rain on your parade or kill your “living yard.” Lots of creatures count on you.

Michael Jackson and Medical Paternalism

2009-07-29T11:14:00.000-07:00

Since Michael Jackson’s death, there has been a push to use the long arm of the law to ransack pharmacy shelves and pluck out a killer. Law enforcement and the public seem thirsty for the arrest of one or more of Jackson’s doctors on charges of homicide, or more specifically manslaughter. A physician can be legally responsible if he is found negligent or reckless in the death of a patient.

Dr. Conrad Murray was present during Jackson’s last moments, and if he physically administered a lethal drug, it would, of course, place him directly in the firing line. But what about the dozens of physicians who have written prescriptions for the singer over the years and who are now being tracked down and investigated? The indirect act of prescribing medications can legally expose an MD, but should it? Should the law be changed to shift a greater degree of responsibility to the patient?

Medical paternalism is interference in a person’s health by a doctor, the FDA or another “authority” because the “authority” is assumed to know what is best for that person. It is imposed against a patient’s will, results in a limitation of autonomy and can spiral into a “you can’t handle the truth” philosophy in which pertinent information is withheld from the sick.

Michael Jackson used aliases and “doctor shopped,” which means he went from one physician to another until he acquired the medications he desired or needed; and a tremendous amount of evidence suggests he required drugs to function. Debilitating insomnia had plagued him for years, just as it did Elvis Presley and Heath Ledger, both of whom also died from prescription drug overdoses.

Michael Jackson’s nurse, Cherilyn Lee, says the singer begged for a powerful sedative, even though he knew it could be deadly, because he was desperate to sleep; and publicist Rob Goldstein says Jackson would dance for eight hours straight in his hotel room hoping it would make him tired. Two months prior to his death, Heath Ledger revealed his agony in getting only two hours of sleep per night; and Elvis Presley’s doctor, George Nichopoulos--whose medical license was suspended when the singer died—says Presley got no more than three hours of sleep at a time. Presley was caught in demanding cycle of needing energy at showtime, then seeking sleep so he could feel refreshed the next day. Perhaps medication was the only solution if he wanted to remain an international star rather than an infirm recluse. Jackson had just left a more secluded life to jump into a grueling rehearsal and concert schedule when he overdosed.

It is all too easy for those who are free from pain and from crippling insomnia to mount their moral high horse and preach about willpower and alternative remedies. Most insomniacs have tried everything, still suffer and turn to heavier and heavier medications. Check the Internet blogs and sleep disorder forums; talk of suicide is as routine as brushing ones teeth.

“I’ve had insomnia for 14 years,” one person writes. “What is the value in a life with chronic unrelenting insomnia night after night?” Someone replies, “I am at 13 years, contemplating suicide.”

A lawyer comments, “If I get off meds, I can’t do my job,” and a teacher says, “I’m literally fighting to stay awake as soon as the day begins. I feel like death. I am only 25, and I look like I am 35-40.”

An unemployed woman writes, “My $200 per hour doctor is no help. He won’t prescribe sleeping pills because he is worried I will deliberately overdose. But life is not worth living. All I do is cry.”

Is this how Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and Elvis Presley felt? If so, one can understand their desire to try hardcore medications, even at the risk of addiction, injury or death. Plus, life in show biz is demanding: a person must be at his best regularly and at exact times, a Herculean feat for someone with chronic insomnia.

Michael Jackson’s doctors have been described as greedy, selfish enablers with “blood on their hands,” but isn’t it just as likely they are caring individuals who are willing to risk personal liability to help the suffering? Dr. William Hurwitz has been described as such a person. He was a Virginia pain management physician, but now sits in jail for prescribing drugs that some of his patients abused. His property was seized by authorities, and after his practice closed, two patients reportedly killed themselves because of untreated pain.

Mentalist Uri Geller and one of Michael Jackson’s bodyguards claim they confiscated anesthesia injection equipment from the singer and screamed at him to get off drugs, but he ignored their warnings. Jackson was clearly willing to assume the risk, so why can’t his fans and family respect his decision? He would certainly want to be held personally responsible for his health-related choices rather than witness what could be described as a modern-day witch hunt against physicians who were arguably just trying to help.

Personal responsibility is unfortunately out-of-style. Today’s society is like a game of dodge ball: there is a tendency to skirt responsibility, shoving a scapegoat out in front to be struck and blaming the team’s loss on him. History teaches us that sins are symbolically washed away when a scapegoat is punished; it’s a ritual that seems to provide psychological satisfaction for a mourning nation that needs an answer to failure and loss. I believe this explains why doctors are routinely and overzealously pursued when a celebrity dies of a prescription overdose and why there is public outrage towards the doctors in Michael Jackson’s life.

Perhaps my libertarian tan lines are showing, but I think doctors, the FDA and other “authorities” should be advisors rather than powerful patriarchs who can shove their mighty pen in their pocket, depriving patients of medications which may be their only hope for a pain-free life. Centralized prescription databases—which are being launched throughout the nation--are risky, “big brother” enterprises that should be discontinued until such time as patients are given greater control over their own health.

In general, people assume a passive role in their medical lives, mindlessly trusting doctors. Instead they should be legally entitled to take greater responsibility for their own wellbeing and encouraged to research the pros and cons of their medications, in addition to pondering—rather than robotically accepting--the advice offered by health professionals. It is simple to log onto Internet forums and read about drug side effects and benefits, as well as clinical studies.

To assure patients are properly advised of side effects, signed disclosures could be required along with impartially produced Internet videos outlining the disadvantages and advantages of a particular drug. The goal would be threefold: proper disclosure, input from a doctor and tools that help individuals make decisions that are right for them.

Regulating medicine through criminal law enforcement is misguided and counterproductive, and could lead to fewer physicians, especially in the chronic pain management field. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, there is already likely to be a shortage of 124,400 doctors by 2025. There are medical professionals today who specialize in “self-defense,” by putting their own desire to stay out of criminal court above the interest of the patient. Some flat-out refuse to treat those with chronic pain due to the ever-present oppression and intimidation by law enforcement. The Hippocratic Oath should not be at war with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Individualism and self-determination are fundamental values that most of us cherish; however, in medicine, they rest on the pharmacy’s dusty back shelf. Medical paternalism is outdated and not a panacea.

America needs a new prescription; and frankly, I think Michael Jackson would agree.

Clueless at City Hall: Foreclosures and Tenants

2009-07-10T10:09:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed the cascade of articles about foreclosure-related evictions that have streamed through mainstream media and the blogosphere with the common theme that tenants are drowning and need a legislative life vest. But you may not know that the Los Angeles City Council, in an ill-advised and shortsighted move, voted to give them more than that vest; it handed them an ocean liner, sinking everyone around them.

I am talking about the ordinance 180441 or Article 14.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, known as the “Eviction of Tenants from Foreclosed Residential Rental Properties.” It essentially bars evictions from foreclosed properties and places foreclosed single-family residences under the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). Listed as an emergency measure, the ordinance barreled scrutiny-free through city hall in 12 days, leaving the public and neighborhood councils little time to respond.

This ordinance states a tenant cannot be evicted from a foreclosed house, condominium or post-1978 apartment building—all which would normally be exempt from the RSO--unless one of two conditions are met: 1) the tenant fails to pay the rent or breaches the lease in a significant way (residing in the country illegally or getting roommates in violation of the contract do not qualify as eviction-worthy offenses), or 2) the landlord plans to occupy the property or demolish the premises, which triggers payment of pricey relocation fees. In other words, a renter must be allowed to live in a foreclosed home until the new buyer takes possession, gives proper notice for him to move, and pays him thousands.

The ordinance was established to safeguard tenants from getting a mere 60-day notice, as state law provided, when they had fully complied with their lease. Although some tenant protections are sensible, this ordinance goes radically overboard, proving disastrous for buyers, financially strapped homeowners, property maintenance crews, real estate agents, banks, neighbors and the community as a whole.

The ordinance encourages fraud. According to local Realtors, it is common these days for a property owner, who is losing his home in foreclosure, to sign a bogus lease agreement with a friend or relative (pretending to be a “tenant”) at a below-market value. The owner can then continue to live in the property for pennies on the dollar, and can, upon eviction, collect $7300 - $18,300 in relocation fees. Real estate agents say they frequently find utility bills listed in the name of the property owner rather than the “tenant,” indicating a scam rather than a valid lease. Sometimes two property owners facing foreclosure will switch houses and sign bogus lease agreements for each other. A new cottage industry has emerged: owners facing foreclosure are contacted and told that for a fee they can stay in their homes. The above scheme is explained.

When foreclosing on houses, banks do not have rental schedules in their files like they do with large apartment buildings; this makes it easy to pretend a low lease amount is fair market value. High-end properties—which may have a view, a large lot or elaborate upgrades--are ideal for this purpose. A “tenant” can convincingly argue that $2000 per month is all that can be collected for a house that would really bring in $5000 due to amenities.

The new ordinance also hurts buyers, especially those who have slender bank accounts and lack experience in the real estate market. Let’s assume a first-time buyer wants to purchase a tenant-occupied foreclosure. First, he must get a loan on the property. The bank may charge him a higher interest rate and the insurance company may charge him an excessive premium due to the fact that the property cannot be owner-occupied at the close of escrow.

Even though the buyer plans to reside in the home, he cannot ask the tenant to leave until 60-days after the close of escrow, at which time the buyer will be responsible for thousands of dollars in relocation fees. If the renter refuses to vacate, the buyer will have to hire an attorney and go through costly and time-consuming eviction process. In the meantime, the tenant could stop paying rent, destroy the house and steal appliances. Unless the insurance company chips in, repairs and replacements will come out of the buyer’s pocket as will the unsubsidized mortgage payments.

Why would anyone purchase a tenant-occupied foreclosure? Apart from a naïve buyer who is unaware of the ramifications, these properties sell to savvy investors who require deep price discounts in order to accept the tenant-related risks. Realtors tell me that they must regularly mark down these properties by 20-40% in order to get them sold, thereby devastating neighborhood values. Nearby homeowners may not be able to refinance or sell their homes for their true worth. When property values tumble, tax revenues decrease, and the overall economy suffers.

The ordinance means an increase in foreclosures as tenants learn it is in their interest to undermine short sales. A short sale occurs when a homeowner, who wants to avoid foreclosure and has a property worth less than the mortgage, asks the bank to take a reduction on the note so he can sell. The bank agrees.

However, when a tenant learns about the ordinance, he is usually unwilling to cooperate with a short sale. He knows that if he refuses to leave, he can force the property into foreclosure, and can probably avoid paying rent for a number of months, stay in the home until 60 days after it is sold and receive thousands in relocation fees. It is a windfall for the tenant, but quite painful for the property owner, who was hoping to maintain a semblance of creditworthiness and sell for the highest price so as not to be damaged by exorbitant taxes. Neighbors prefer short sales because they sell for more than foreclosures and usually mean a smoother transfer of ownership. Short sales are also better for a bank’s bottom line, thus making wiser use of taxpayer “bailout” funds.

LA Council President Eric Garcetti says the new ordinance saves communities from “the nuisances that can accompany empty, boarded-up homes.” It is true that some vacant foreclosures are an eye-sore, but hanging onto a tenant is not the answer. Tenant-occupied properties tend to look worse than vacant foreclosures, especially on the interior, and they are a much tougher sell. It would be preferable to mandate banks to keep the exterior of foreclosure properties tidy, watered and free from vagrants.

Real estate agents usually recommend evicting tenants prior to putting a home on the market. Tenants who do not want to leave often intentionally sabotage sales; they may whisper to potential buyers that the house is falling apart or that the neighborhood is undesirable. They rarely allow a lockbox for easy access and even though they agree to appointments (as required by law), they may repeatedly “stand up” buyers, agents, repairmen and maintenance crews, wasting everyone’s time. They may refuse to let the pool man and gardener into the backyard; these low paid workers are rarely compensated for lost hours. A tenant-occupied property, on average, sells for less than a vacant home, again impairing neighborhood values.

LA’s ordinance is wholly unnecessary now that President Obama and Congress have passed a measure called “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” which provides a 90-day eviction notice for month-to-month renters and gives those with a bona fide lease the ability to remain in a property until the end of the agreed-upon term. “Bona fide” means the contract is the result of an arm’s length transaction and the rent is not substantially under fair market value. This law is unlikely to fall prey to scams and does not provide for outrageous tenant paydays.

Although the federal law puts banks in the landlord business, it provides the necessary protections for renters and communities. It is a vast improvement over the local ordinance, which currently trumps federal law.

When society has floated too far to the east, there is a tendency for politicians to make a wide and radical swing to the west rather than guide the sail to a sane middle-ground. This is what the LA City Council has done. Tell them to revoke the local ordinance so the waters can be calm again.

_________

Note: The Greater Valley Glen Council recently passed a motion, which was forwarded to the LA City Council, suggesting the new ordinance be revoked entirely, or revised to apply only to (five units or greater) apartment buildings, since these properties tend to be sold with renters intact.

Hold the MSG: It’s Not Risk-Free

2009-07-05T14:17:00.000-07:00

I always assumed monosodium glutamate was like a snowstorm in Los Angeles: easy to avoid. I simply needed to sidestep Chinese restaurants and eyeball product labels for those conspicuous three letters: MSG.

At the same time I asked myself, why even go to the trouble? What’s the harm in ingesting this salty filler? If it were a culinary “evil doer” surely Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would pierce it with its mighty sword or at least put it in the stockades for all see and taunt. Since the FDA had no ban and no serious disclosure requirement, I figured all was fine in kitchenville, grocerville and restaurantville. I was wrong.

I suffered from migraines before I was old enough to say the word, “eye ache,” my childhood name for the excruciating pain that pulverized one side of my face eight days out of every month. While my school friends enjoyed recess between classes, I’d lie in my usual spot: on the cot in the nurse’s office.

While my classmates whizzed through standardized tests, I held a cold pack to my forehead and struggled to discern the fuzzy print. While my buddies hoofed it up at the prom, I lay in a hatchback of pain in the parking lot in my date’s Saab. This was my life until 2003 when things took a turn for the worse.

I started getting migraines every day, and the one prescription medicine that had decreased the pain on occasion, no longer worked. I pushed through weeks, months and years, experimenting with allopathic medicines as well as alternative remedies, such as acupuncture, homeopathy, massage and hypnosis. Nothing helped.

Thursday’s child may have far to go, but on a Thursday in December 2008, I got closer to relief when my husband said, “Maybe your migraines will go away if you stop eating monosodium glutamate.”

“What are you talking about? I hardly ever eat anything with MSG.”

Turns out I was wrong. This substance, which was discovered in 1908 by Tokyo University professor Kikunae Ikeda, is now as ubiquitous as blue jeans.

After more than 40 years of misery, I have learned the truth about MSG. I have learned it is 15 times more prevalent in food than it was in 1969 and that some people, like myself, are super sensitive to it, despite the fact that the FDA says it is safe at normal levels for most people. I have discovered it is a secret saboteur of health; the food industry tricks consumers into buying products with free glutamic acid (or MSG) by listing it under any one of 43 innocent-sounding names, such as natural flavoring, seasonings, yeast extract, spices, pectin or citric acid. A pesticide company called Emerald BioAgriculture uses an MSG type of “growth enhancer” which they have been spraying onto selected vegetables and nuts since 1999; the company is currently looking to get government permission to use the substance on organic produce.

Meats, seafood and poultry can be rinsed or injected with MSG before reaching your plate, and restaurant salad bars can get an MSG spritz, giving lettuce that perky look. This toxic additive can be found in vitamins, soaps, cosmetics, chewing gum and intravenous hospital fluids. It can be found in children’s medications, and it might lurk inside your migraine prescription.

In short, MSG acts as cheap filler, a flavor enhancer and a cosmetic surgeon, fooling unsuspecting consumers into thinking aged, withered foods are fresh. It can hide unpleasant tastes. It has an addictive component much like nicotine, and recent studies in Spain have conclusively linked it with obesity. MSG means profits for the food industry and its powerful Washington lobbyists; and it is no surprise that proper labeling legislation remains elusive.

If any additive containing the essential active ingredient of MSG, glutamic acid or free glutamate, is an amount that is less than 78%, the government does not require it to be labeled MSG. This is deceptive because MSG itself contains over 78% free glutamates. Some products will even say “No MSG” when they have glutamic acid in another form.

There are epidemiological studies, such as those brought to light by Dr. Adrienne Samuels, suggesting that up to 40% of the US population suffer from adverse reactions to MSG with drowsiness, numbness, chest pains, nausea, facial pressure, difficulty in breathing or headaches. The FDA claims only 2% of the population experience a bad reaction, but even if this is right, it amounts to whopping 6 million Americans, more than the 3 million who are allergic to peanuts.

It has been six months since I decided to eat, drink and be MSG free. I consume carefully scrutinized items from a health food store because Dr. Russell Blaylock--author of a book about the toxicity of MSG called Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills--claims 75% - 90% of the foods sold at traditional grocers are laced with the unhealthy additive. I try to avoid restaurants and “brown bag it” to dinner parties. Miraculously the daily migraines have disappeared.

I am not goof-proof and have had seven consumption mishaps. Three resulted in four-day migraines which appeared exactly 18 hours after I ate the questionable foods. Only three migraines in six months or 12 days of sickness is better than Christmas when you are accustomed to a life as an invalid.

If migraines are your curse, limit yourself to healthy food. Eat only organic fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains. Read every package. Ask every question. Petition every politician for better labeling laws.

President Obama has described current procedures for regulating food safety as a “hazard to human health” and plans to overhaul the system for the first time in more than 70 years. Yet, the toxicity of monosodium glutamate is not on his radar. Tell him it should be.

Tell him MSG is not risk-free.

________

The Greater Valley Glen Council recently passed a motion which states, “For any new product or recipe change, food manufacturers must measure for free glutamic acid and disclose it as MSG on the label with levels present in milligrams.” The motion has been forwarded to the Los Angeles City Council and to Sacramento Legislators for further consideration.

Entertainer Fred Travalena dies at age 66.

2009-06-29T09:08:00.000-07:00

Photo taken at a party in Washington DC in the early 1980's. Also in photo Victoria McMahon (ex-wife of Ed McMahon) on left and Charlotte Laws in center.

Charlotte Laws, Michael Jackson and Brooke Shields

2009-06-25T16:35:00.001-07:00

Michael Jackson died today at the age of 50. Photo taken backstage at the Grammy Awards.

Ed McMahon and Charlotte Laws

2009-06-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

Ed McMahon died Tuesday at the age of 86. This photo was taken in the early 1980's backstage at the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas.

Adam Lambert: Don’t worry, Elvis would have lost American Idol, too.

2009-05-20T23:18:00.000-07:00

This year’s American Idol competition was the embodiment of America’s culture war. It was never a singing contest.

Today, I was interviewed on the Sirius radio show “Across the Nation with Bob Dunning,” and I correctly predicted Kris Allen would win the American Idol (AI) title even though Adam Lambert is the true talent and will be a worldwide superstar. Allen will most likely disappear into the woodwork within a year.

Why did I predict this? Because five out of the seven past winners have been Christians and all of the past AI winners have come from culturally more conservative states than their opponents. Allen is from a small town in Arkansas, and Lambert is from a big city in California. Allen is a church leader and Lambert has never disclosed his religious beliefs.

The majority of Americans identify as politically right of center. During the 2008 election, polls showed them to be more in line with the values of John McCain than Barack Obama. Barack Obama was able to overcome this hurdle and win the election because he was seen as a moderate. Lambert can in no way be described as moderate on stage. His flashy stage presence and the lingering questions about his sexual orientation put him firmly in the liberal camp.

Last night I reviewed the states that supported Lambert as opposed to Allen on the “Dial Idol” website, and then compared it with the map of red vs. blue states from the 2008 election. There was tremendous similarity. Lambert won many of the same states as Obama. He carried California, Oregon, Washington, New York and all of New England except Vermont. Allen won Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Utah and Arizona.

American Idol is not a singing contest in which the most talented is crowned in the end. It is a show based on a democratic process in which callers—who tend to lean conservative--choose the performer with whom they can identify. The majority seek a winner who is wholesome as apple pie and who share their value system. Additionally, the AI demographic tends to be white, middle-aged females who are slightly more conservative than the average American.

Lambert is an iconoclast and was never the front-runner in this race. He was always the underdog.

Memorable newspaper headlines called the Allen-Lambert showdown: “Good vs. Evil” and “David vs. Goliath.” Did anyone actually believe ordinary Americans would vote for a contestant equated with “evil”?

A Kris Allen win is the expected and a continuation of the same.

The real story would have been a Lambert win. It would have indicated a cultural shift in America, especially as same-sex marriage initiatives sweep the land.

Elvis Presley’s appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1956 horrified the masses who thought the singer was upsetting the morals and mores of society. Elvis was the Adam Lambert of his time.

And he would have lost American Idol as well.

Adam Lambert and the Partisan Divide

2009-05-18T10:22:00.000-07:00

I am a greenhorn in the music world. If you gifted me an Ipod, I’d probably mistake it for a remote control. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift are names I have heard, but faces I could not place. I can’t operate a CD player and have always thought of concert-going as an activity other people do.

Until now. American Idol contestant Adam Lambert seems to have awakened my long lost music gene. It happened on a Tuesday in March when I coasted by the family room TV on my way to nab cashews from the kitchen. This male Elvira had cool, black nail polish, a Clark Gable confidence, an androgynous sex appeal and the ability to emote like I’ve never seen.

Heck, this is a concert I could attend, I thought.

With an alluring combination of pure talent, charisma, unpredictability and eccentricity, Lambert will no doubt go down in history as a superstar, not to mention American Idol’s greatest success story.

Commentators call Lambert a polarizing figure: you love him or you hate him. Could this stem largely from the partisan divide in America?

Lambert is a blue state. He is Hollywood, glamour and bigger than life. Using struts, vocal acrobatics, and bizarre song renditions, he sticks it to “the man” and orthodoxy. He upsets society, chastising manners and mores, much the way Elvis Presley did on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1956. Lambert is a comic book hero for those with an anti-establishment bent, such as 70’s children like me who learned early on to distrust government and convention.

His competitor, Kris Allen, is a red state. He is good ole boy from Arkansas who attends church and married his longtime sweetheart. On stage, he is as placid as a lake, even against the raging waterfall, Lambert. Allen is humble, casual and could live in Pleasantville. Lambert would be the Picasso of Pleasantville, upsetting the status quo.

In many cases, Lambert clearly transcends the red-blue divide, as evidenced by the statistics presented on “Dial Idol” and other websites that estimate the percentage of votes each competitor receives by state. But I have to wonder if some of his angry detractors are those with a deep-seated dislike for all things liberal and idiosyncratic. .

The controversy surrounding Lambert’s sexuality also plays into this theory. Bill O’Reilly, for example, thought it newsworthy to ask his Fox News viewers if they thought the singer was gay. Successful same-sex marriage initiatives are sweeping this country, and opponents may see Lambert as a poster boy for alternate lifestyles and as a threat to conservative values.

Could an Adam Lambert victory represent a new level of acceptance for difference? Would a Kris Allen win reinforce communitarian values and the familiar? Some may see this season’s contest as a battle of hope and change pitted against tradition and custom.

Win or lose, Lambert will be a music icon. And win or lose, I guess I’d better figure out what those shapes on the CD player mean.

Dom DeLuise died Monday at age 75.

2009-05-06T10:08:00.000-07:00

Photo of Charlotte Laws and Dom DeLuise in Florida in 1979, during the filming of the movie Smokey and the Bandit II.

Jack Kemp: One of My favorite Politicians

2009-05-03T09:23:00.000-07:00

I had a long and delightful conversation with Jack Kemp backstage at the Poverty Conference at the University of Southern California in February 2006; we discussed tax policy and whether there should be an increase in the minimum wage. The event was hosted by Maria Shriver, and Kemp was a panelist. I found him down-to-earth, energetic and authentic. He felt comfortable asserting his own views, even when they did not fall in line with the views of the Republican Party. He died of cancer yesterday at age 73. He will be missed.

Golden Girl Bea Arthur dies at 86

2009-04-25T19:06:00.000-07:00

Photo of Bea Arthur and Charlotte Laws at a party in the 1980's.

Banks Get a Bailing Grade

2009-04-23T07:50:00.000-07:00

I always wondered about dimwits who go on holiday, then spend the entire trip a fingerbreadth from the hotel television. But there I was--fingers, breath and all--in my beachside room screaming at Nancy Pelosi and Henry Paulson on “All Bailout, All the Time” TV as they ran around like Chicken Little telling Americans that money no longer grows on trees and that the great oaks we call banks would perish if they didn’t get some greenbacks fast. The green was then plucked from our modest front yard flora and rushed to the banks, but the banks then stubbornly refused to shelter us with their pythonic branches.

Even though I was an anti-bailout girl from day one, I figured it would have been better to give the money to Americans indirectly rather than rely on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other questionable congressional schemes. Of the $4 trillion that has been committed to the bailout (according to figures released by Congress’ oversight panel, although Bloomberg and others say it is upwards of $12 trillion), the 250 million Americans age 18 and over could have received $16,000 each. It would work like this. A person with a mortgage would receive a principal reduction of $16,000 on his bank loan. A person without a mortgage, but with credit card debt, would receive up to a $16,000 credit on this debt and any unused funds would be placed in a mutual fund for a period of no less than ten years. A person without mortgage or credit card debt would be required to take the $16,000 mutual fund option. The banks would receive the money, thus become more liquid so they could lend in the future. The stock market would get a boost, and the average person would experience greater optimism about the economy and his own financial situation. This did not happen, and it is fruitless to cry over bare bushes and toppled trees, or the verdant landscape that could have been.

Anger, however, can often move mountains, even barren ones. The average person is incensed over pyramid-king Bernie Madoff, CEO bonuses, lavish executive junkets and the diamond-studded safety nets gifted big business. This anger has prompted a lot of legal scrutiny and a few arrests, a lot of indignant political speeches and a few attempts to patch bad law, and a lot of negative press about corporate greed and a few reimbursements of bonus funds.

But public outrage is deficient in the realm I call banking’s black hole of incompetence, a bureaucratic void which seems to suck intelligence, ability and reason from bank employees. As a Realtor, I have come face to face with this stymieing scenario in bank short sale departments. A short sale is when a lender agrees to let a property sell for less than is owed on the loan and forgives the difference in order to avoid a costly and time-consuming foreclosure. This is not real forgiveness or a favor; it is done to increase the bank’s bottom line. A short sale tends to net the bank more than a foreclosure does.

A short sale works like this. A property is listed with a Realtor, and then offers are submitted to the bank along with documentation showing the owner of the property has a hardship. The bank reviews the documents and appraises the property, then typically two to three months later, makes a decision about whether they will take less than the amount due on the note. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, buyers are sometimes required to wait six to 11 months for a short sale department’s response, finding out later they have chased their tail and have no deal at all.

Short sales have increased dramatically in the past two years. According to the National Association of Realtors, short sales and foreclosures account for 45 percent of the home sales nationwide.

I recently closed six short sale escrows, but grimaced each time as banks delayed for months, ordered overvalued appraisals and mismanaged files. Too few employees and low wages was the standard excuse, but there did not seem to be an attempt to increase compensation or hire enough staff to handle the workload.

On these transactions, the banks—which were supplemented with taxpayer dollars--lost $675,000, an average of $112,500 per property, in a price range of $500,000 to $1,100,000. The losses could primarily be attributed to the bank’s extended delay, which typically resulted in a loss of the buyer with the best offer. In the end, a second or even third place bidder would close the deal. Additionally, when banks are slow to respond, properties fall into disrepair and lose value. Brown lawns, mosquito-infested pools and leaky plumbing systems are not uncommon.

Sometimes this taxpayer loss can be chalked up to inflated bank appraisals and an irrational rejection of a market-price offer. Other times, it can be attributed to foolish self-imposed time-limits, such as when a bank negotiator, who has taken three months to look at a pile of offers, tells the seller’s accountant he has only one hour to provide an updated profit and loss statement or the file will be closed, thus requiring the entire process to be started from scratch.

According to the National Association of Realtors, approximately five million homes were sold last year. If we estimate that one million were short sales, it is reasonable to assume that there may be an annual taxpayer loss of as much as $100 billion due to this sort of banking incompetence.

A seventh short sale transaction in December did not close. As listing agent, I brought the bank an offer of $185,000, but the bank refused it, saying the townhouse was worth $205,000. A month later, the highest offer I could get was $135,000, which they rejected saying the property was worth $155,000, despite the fact that unsold listings in the same complex were priced in the $120,000’s. The townhouse went into foreclosure and is now on the market for $115,000. In addition, the homeowner association (HOA) has been fining the property at $100 per day for months: the final sum owed to the HOA will be upwards of $18,000. Since the bank refused the initial $185,000, the loss to taxpayers on this transaction will be at least $88,000.

The oak, which is the national tree of the US, is a symbol of Zeus, the Thunder God and strength; but lately our banks have proved themselves unworthy of this distinction. They have become welfare bandits when they should be pillars of stability for the community. They have accepted taxpayer dollars without weeding out incompetence and senseless waste. They are rooted at the center of the senseless bailout efforts, and we should be angry about it all.

NRA

2009-04-02T14:49:00.000-07:00

In the past, I have supported second amendment rights because I believe ordinary people have the right to protect themselves with a handgun. However, the primary guns rights organization, the National Rifle Association (NRA), apparently does not see "the freedom to bear arms" as its mission. It has a secondary mission: to counter any and all laws that protect animals. They fight in favor of cruel leg-hold traps, i.e. for the fur industry. What the heck does this have to do with the right to carry a gun? They call animal rights advocates, like the Humane Society of the United States, "extremists." HSUS is one of the weakest animal groups out there; it's like saying local animal shelter employees are a bunch of animal extremists. The NRA is countering measures to reduce or eliminate the killing of puppy dogs in animal shelters. What the heck do guns have to do with whether animal shelters should hold puppy dogs longer or kill them faster. The NRA wants them dead faster. The NRA lobbied in favor of abusive puppy mill producers.

The NRA has discredited themselves and their cause. Now I realize they are simply an extremist group of animal-haters. I withdraw my support of this despicable organization and will rethink my position on the handgun issue.

Monosodium Glutamate Motion Passes (MSG)

2009-03-26T13:49:00.000-07:00

This is the letter that was sent to Los Angeles City Councilmembers regarding Monosodium Glutamate (MSG).

Dear Honorable Councilmember,

The Greater Valley Glen Council passed the following motion and hopes you will ask Sacramento legislators to put an MSG product labeling policy in place for the state of California. There are individuals, for example, who have suffered from migraine headaches for years unaware that MSG is the culprit.

Motion:

“When food companies hide the presence of MSG (or free glutamic acid) in products, consumers are misled and lose the ability to choose what they put into their bodies. It is estimated that 2% - 40% of the public are negatively affected or become quite ill by the presence of MSG. Food companies may hide MSG under 40+ names that consumers would not recognize, (i.e. gelatin, natural flavor, soy sauce, seasonings, autolyzed yeast, calcium caseinate, textured protein, yeast food, etc.). The Greater Valley Glen Council wants to see improved product labeling and suggests the following: When there is a new product on the market or a recipe change, the food manufacturer must measure for free glutamic acid and disclose it as MSG on the label with levels present in milligrams.”
___________

Additional MSG facts:
MSG is Always In:
• Autolyzed yeast
• Calcium caseinate
• Gelatin
• Glutamate
• Glutamic acid
• Hydrolyzed protein
• Monopotassium glutamate
• Monosodium glutamate
• Sodium caseinate
• Textured protein
• Yeast extract
• Yeast food
• Yeast Nutrient
MSG is Often In:
• Barley Malt
• Bouillon
• Broth
• Carrageenan
• Enzyme-modified substances
• Flavoring
• Flavors
• Malt Extract
• Malt flavoring
• Maltodextrin
• Natural flavor/flavorings
• Natural pork/beef/chicken flavoring
• Pectin
• Protein-fortified substances
• Seasonings
• Soy protein
• Soy protein isolate or concentrate
• Soy sauce
• Soy sauce extract
• Stock
• Vegetable gum
• Whey protein
• Whey protein isolate or concentrate
• Spice
MSG can be found in shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, vitamins, medicines, candy, milk, chewing gum. Even food that is labeled “organic,” can have MSG. Lettuce and vegetables are often sprayed with MSG because it gives the lettuce a renewed look, (even at restaurant salad bars). Meats can be rinsed with MSG phosphate substance (this is rarely mentioned on the meat’s label)

Thank you and feel free to contact me if you have any questions at (818) 346-5280.

Sincerely,

Charlotte Laws, Ph.D.
Greater Valley Glen Council
Chair of the Government Relations Committee

Humanitarian Art Ordinance

2009-03-24T13:11:00.000-07:00

I am happy to report the Greater Valley Glen Council voted to support my motion, making it illegal to kill or abuse animals for the sake of art. The motion has now been forwarded to the Los Angeles City Council and to legislators in Sacramento with hopes they will further the effort. This letter was sent to LA City Councilmembers.

Dear Honorable Councilmember,

The Greater Valley Glen Council encourages you to create a Humanitarian Art Ordinance for the city of Los Angeles, making it illegal to abuse or kill animals for the sake of art. A sample ordinance is enclosed for your review.

The San Francisco Art Institute recently planned to display the short film called "Don't Trust Me" by an artist named Adel Abdessemed, which depicted horses and other animals being bludgeoned to death; protests and negative press forced them to cancel the exhibit. Abdessemed's ensuing film titled "Usine" was featured in May 2009 at a New York exhibit. In this film, the artist traps animals in a pen, including pit bulls and roosters, and causes them to rip each other apart.

A Costa Rican artist starved a dog to death as “art;” the animal was tied up at the exhibit and left for weeks with no food or water until he perished. A recent art project in Florida involved dipping live mice into resin, then cutting them into cubes. A domestic cat was skinned alive for a project at the Toronto Film Festival. Two years ago in Los Angeles, an elephant was spray painted to look like wallpaper for an exhibit; LA Animal Services had to go to the exhibit and order the unsafe paint to be removed.

We are opposed to this disturbing trend in the art world and hope you will make it clear that Los Angeles’ art exhibits and projects are compassionate. If the artist creates or contributes to animal cruelty in a country where abusive acts are legal, the resulting artwork should be outlawed in the United States.

This is the sample ordinance for the city of Los Angeles:

The Humanitarian Art Ordinance makes the commission of animal abuse for the purposes of creating media or an exhibit illegal and punishable as a misdemeanor or felony and says The City will not Commission such Exhibits.

Resolution approving the “Humanitarian Art” Ordinance would make the commission of the crime of Animal Abuse for the purposes of creating media or a display in the City of Los Angeles illegal and punishable as a misdemeanor or felony, and the City will not Commission such Exhibits.

WHEREAS, The City of Los Angeles recognizes and approves of the American Humane Association’s “Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media” wherein the basic principles declare that: · Animals are not props! · No animal will be killed or injured for the sake of a film production and American Humane Association will not allow any animal to be treated inhumanely to elicit a performance; and

WHEREAS, The City of Los Angeles holds that the production of media that the director or the producer of the media is the direct cause of animal abuse to be captured on media supports an unacceptable industry of animal abuse; and,

WHEREAS, “Animal Abuse” includes the violation of Los Angles Ordinances, State, Federal and international laws pertaining to animal abuse, the interest of animal welfare and animal cruelty laws specifically framed for the prevention of inhumane treatment of animals, including, but not limited to California Penal Code Sections 596, 596.5, 596.7, 597, 597.1, 597.3, 597a through x, 598, 598 a through d, 599 et al, 600, 623, 374d, 384h, 399, 399.5 and Federal laws 7 USC § 1901 – 1907, and 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq; and,

WHEREAS, “Caused or created or contributed to” shall mean that the defendant was responsible for causing the animal to be abused as defined above. A person is responsible for creating or causing the abuse of the animal if the animal would not have been abused in the way that the animal was captured on film “but for” the actions, production and direction of the defendant; and.

WHEREAS, “Exhibit” shall mean a display, presentation, show, film, media and/or screening of Animal Abuse; and.

WHEREAS, nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any person from capturing the Animal Abuse when the individual is not the cause of the death of animals and are not responsible for aiding or abetting in the crime of animal abuse that occurred; and,

WHEREAS, there is a government interest in protecting animals from unnecessary cruelty and not funding or commissioning animal cruelty to occur; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles hereby acknowledges that this law is necessary to prevent further animal cruelty; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That this Humane Art Ordinance will make the commission of the crime of Animal Abuse for the purposes of creating media to now be illegal, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Los Angeles will not Commission or sponsor Exhibits wherein the creator of the media caused the crime of Animal Abuse to occur; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ordinance would be drafted as a two pronged test for the actual director. The necessary elements of the crime are (a) Animal Abuse as defined under Los Angeles local ordinances, state, federal or international law must have taken place, (b) The defendant would have caused or created or contributed to the crime of Animal Abuse to take place for the purposes of his or her creation of the media or exhibit.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (818) 346-5280.

Sincerely,

Charlotte Laws, Ph.D.
Chair – Government Relations
Greater Valley Glen Council

*Ordinance language authored by Commissioner Christine Garcia (SF area).

Clean Money: Better Elections

2009-02-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

The Greater Valley Glen Council hosted a Clean Money Workshop at Kittridge Elementary School on January 17, 2009, exploring the question of whether local elections should be fully financed with public funds, and if so, what the process should entail. Robin Gilbert and Trina Ray, volunteers with the California Clean Money Campaign, supplied a video and PowerPoint presentation and asked participants to fill out a four page questionnaire.

Months ago, the Los Angeles City Council Rules and Finance Committee said they wanted feedback from neighborhood councils before entertaining the issue of publicly funded elections and before asking the LA Ethics Commission to draft legislation. Thirty-five clean money workshops have been conducted around the city, and according to Gilbert and Ray, the input from participants has been enthusiastic and illuminating.

Arizona and Maine currently have clean money elections as do the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Since the implementation of public financing, they have realized an increase in voter participation and in female and minority candidates, as well as a decline in special interest influence.

How might this process work? If a candidate opts to abide by public financing, he or she would be allowed to come up with seed money (to open a campaign office, make flyers, etc.) possibly not exceeding $10,000 for a City Council race or $25,000 for a Mayoral race. In order to qualify for the ballot and demonstrate his or her viability, the candidate would have to get a set number of five dollar donations (i.e. 750) from registered voters in his or her district. These donations would go directly to a common fund. Then all clean money candidates would be given an initial sum for their campaigns. They would be given matching funds later, if necessary, so as not to be outspent by opponents who have declined to participate in public financing. Eventually, privately financed candidates would realize it was not in their best interest to fundraise furiously because their clean money opponents would receive the same funds with no effort.

Candidates would be able to concentrate on ideas and communicate with voters, and the amount of money spent on political campaigns would naturally decrease over time. A statewide clean-money system would cost Californians $3 to $5 per person; implementation citywide would cost less.

Voter turnout for the 2007 Los Angeles city elections was a meager 10%, and 72% of the money for city council races came from outside the district, usually from large donors. Seventy-eight percent of the time LA city council races are won by those who raise the most money. In Arizona, before public financing, 79% of the elections were won by the candidate with the most cash, yet after public funding, the individual with the most money won only two percent of the time.

Clean money means accountability to voters, not special interests. It gives the ordinary citizen access to candidates. It levels the playing field and increases voter participation. Contact www.caclean.org to participate in an upcoming workshop.

Please Visit...Charlotte's Web Blog

2009-02-18T10:36:00.000-08:00

Charlotte Laws - TV Appearances

2009-02-06T17:05:00.000-08:00

Charlotte Laws on TV Shows discussing Show Biz

2009-02-01T14:00:00.000-08:00

Watch Guest & Hosting Reel - Charlotte Laws in Entertainment Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Charlotte Laws Performing at the Comedy Store

2009-01-25T18:37:00.000-08:00

Watch Stand-up Comedy Charlotte Laws at the Comedy Store in Funny Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Odd Spinoza Experiences...

2009-01-25T18:36:00.000-08:00

Watch Paranormal Experiences related to Baruch Spinoza in Faith Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Revised Real Estate Ad Per Blogger's Comment

2009-01-24T08:18:00.000-08:00

New Ad to Promote My Real Estate Business

2008-11-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

Watch Funny Commercial about Real Estate Agent Charlotte Laws in Funny Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Sarah Palin Effigy: Now Hanging Around a Republican's House

2008-11-02T15:24:00.001-08:00

The torch (or noose) has been passed. When a Sarah Palin effigy—a mannequin hanging with a rope around its neck--was removed from a front yard in West Hollywood, California, I immediately erected one at my home in Woodland Hills, California as a bold, political statement. Next to the effigy are pictures of smiling Sarah by her bloody kill. I ask the question, “Which is more offensive? Palin’s butchered animal corpses or a plastic doll attached to the roof?”

The turmoil created by the West Hollywood effigy is hard to comprehend when one compares it with the lack of concern (by most media, politicians and members of the public) for Palin’s heartlessness on animal issues and cluelessness about the environment.

Palin’s hunting abilities are exalted because she is a woman. Female politicians typically act like males in order to appear tough enough to compete for the White House, whereas Palin has been able to remain feminine and exude a tough image through her murder of animals. It is disturbing that this cruelty is praised rather than condemned.

McCain has lost Republican and independent votes by choosing an enthusiastic animal killer as his running mate. I am a registered Republican and strong John McCain supporter. Although I worked on McCain’s 2000 campaign and believe he would be an excellent President, I hope for an Obama victory. My daughter, who calls herself a very conservative Republican, has already cast her vote for the Democratic ticket.

Palin should not have any power, any access to the White House or any access to John McCain. She would set animal welfare and environmentalism back decades. I am disturbed by McCain’s recent comments on Larry King Live in which he admitted that he would have to reconsider drilling in ANWR because Sarah will insist.

There are a growing number of Republicans and independents who cast their vote, in large part, based on candidate’s platform and record on animal issues. Politicians in both parties should recognize this fact.

Sarah will be hanging out at my house until after the election.

Sarah Palin Display

2008-11-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin & Barack Obama: Beauty Queen & Barack Star

2008-09-07T20:30:00.000-07:00

Spoof on the election that we put together. Starring Kayla Laws as Sarah Palin and Harry Davis as Barack Obama.

The Sarah Palin Pick: McCain the Maverick is Back

2008-08-29T11:09:00.001-07:00

When introducing his vice-presidential pick, Senator John McCain made it clear that he will run on his maverick credentials. He tossed the right-wing Republicans the lifeboat they wanted: a pro-life running mate; then, in so many words, asked them to leave him alone and let him go back to being the independent and non-partisan that he is. The McCain of 2000 has re-emerged. He will run on a ticket of change. His credentials for shaking up Washington and upsetting the status quo overshadow those of Senator Barack Obama.

Palin may or may not draw Hillary Clinton voters, but I surmise that this was not McCain’s primary goal. Although he wanted to appeal to women voters, his real goal was to appeal to Independents and Reagan Democrats. Notice how he spoke about eliminating government waste, toppling special interests, bringing ethics and reform to government and helping struggling Americans?

Does Palin have the experience to be commander in chief? No, but I think that a selection of Senator Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State would silence those fears.

Stay tuned…..

P.S. As an animal rights advocate, I am disappointed in Palin’s obvious lack of regard for animals. She brags about her love of hunting and fishing, and internet sources say she has attempted to oust protected species from the endangered list. I suppose no candidate is perfect, but this is unfortunate.

Warning to Democrats: Don’t House Around

2008-08-27T17:38:00.000-07:00

It’s election season, and the first real weapon of partisanship has been fired. Although it was aimed at Senator John McCain, shrapnel has hit me and a number of my friends. I am speaking about the recent attempt by Democrats to put McCain under “house” arrest, arguing that because he cannot whip out facts about the number of homes he and his wife own, he is an out-of-touch fat cat, disconnected from common folk.

By this standard, my friend Jenny and her three children are fat cats, too. Four years ago, I asked her how many houses she owned. She had no idea; her 38-year-old husband—a struggling insurance salesman--had bought a bunch of $100,000 rental properties in Arizona with no money down. He died of a heart attack that year leaving his family to grapple with mortgage payments on their $180,000 home and to manage the “no cash flow” houses in Arizona. Jenny works as a school teacher and raises her kids by herself. She still has the rentals.

Dave is unsure how many houses he has. “I’d have to sit down and figure it out.” It’s a painful topic. Some of the homes are in his name but really belong to family members, and the rest--which were previously tenant-occupied--are in foreclosure because he lost his job a year ago and has been unemployed since. He rents a room in a stranger’s house because he cannot afford to live in any of his homes. Another fat cat, I suppose?

Until now, election etiquette has been almost Miss Manners perfect. As an Independent voter, I appreciate a polite, political meal in which no one grabs the steak knife and impales his opponent’s boiled potato. But the political table seems to have turned. Democrats suggest a person should not sit at the head of the table as president unless he uses a plastic fork and paper napkin. The donkey party has officially launched class warfare, which is code for partisan politics, the very thing voters have said they despise.

Besides entering the Bermuda Triangle of partisan politics—territory which causes voters to mysteriously disappear from polling booths-Democrats have offended a vast number of middle-income Americans like Jenny, Dave and me. Yes, I have stumbled a couple of times on the “how many houses do you own” question, even though I am less affluent than Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They make at least four times more than I do, live in expensive estates and have gold-plated health care plans. They may think there is a notable difference between the McCains’ wealth and their own, but the real disparity lies between any US Senator’s income and that of many average Americans, including bread-and-butter property owners like Jenny and Dave.

The final reason why I find the Democrats’ “housing attack” troublesome is because it is a direct ambush on the American dream, the goal of starting with nothing and eventually attaining financial success. I moved to California in 1981 with only $500 and bought my first home for $138,000 six years later when I was an out-of-work, single mom. Now I have five properties.

As a real estate agent for the past decade, I have been lucky to witness the American dream over and over like a good movie rerun. I specialize in helping teachers, nurses, police officers and other ordinary Americans build wealth through income properties. I can advise someone with a salary of $50,000 - $120,000 per year how to safely buy real estate over time which will lead to affluence. Many of my clients have become multi-millionaires; others are working towards that goal. I assure you none wish to be taunted, criticized or belittled over their investment portfolio.

So my advice to Democrats? Don’t house around or you may get hurt when absentee ballot Independents sit down at their breakfast tables this fall. Sure, some may move to another kitchen (i.e. that of Nader or Barr), but I suspect most will pass the potatoes and their vote to McCain.

Funny Video

2008-07-16T21:52:00.001-07:00

Caught in a Community College Stereotype

2007-11-26T10:38:00.000-08:00

I am a ravenous Pac-Man when it comes to education. Instead of gobbling up arcade dots, I devour community college (CC) credits and spit them into some anonymous education database, never to make their way into a transcript. This is because I have no need for records; I earned my college degrees years ago.

Although community colleges benefit society with their low cost learning and convenient locations, my experiences with them punctuate a less-than-flattering stereotype. For example, CC teachers often have a “no goof-off left behind” philosophy in which they treat pupils like mental deadbeats regardless of their aptitude or commitment to college.

There is also a tendency among CC teachers to focus on grades and classroom conduct and to put forth rules that encourage uniformity. These practices bruise efforts to master the subject matter, and hamper creativity and personal responsibility. They groom students to be obedient workers and followers rather than executives and leaders in society.

No doubt there exist maverick CC instructors who operate outside of this paradigm, but unfortunately my educational path has not yet zigged or zagged with theirs.

I feel qualified to analyze these issues due to my surfeit of school experiences. I studied at six four-year universities, including the University of Southern California (USC) and Oxford University in England, and I have taken dozens of courses at three Los Angeles area community colleges in statistics, real estate, screenwriting, typing, philosophy and physical education, to name a few.

This semester I am enrolled in a community college film production class, and the teacher has informed the camera savvy students that they should lose some of their savvy in order to make it fair for the less advanced. This blatant example of lowest common denominator learning reminds me of an article by Andy Monfried about showerheads at his gym. Monfried told management how one showerhead in the men’s dressing room was superior to the others; he requested the water flow of the inferior ones be improved. Rather than bring the deficient ones up to a higher standard, management disabled the one with the good flow.

The high-flow students in my class have been asked to disable themselves. Those who own quality cameras must toss them aside in favor of substandard ones, and lighting equipment is forbidden because it is not clear all students have access to it. Our final project—a one-minute movie—should not be too professional, according to the instructor.

Another point; there is a tendency for CC teachers to be obsessed with grades, tests and attendance rather than course content. My film teacher is such a repeat offender in this area that I have devised my own version of hangman to track the extent of her neurosis. Every time she mentions grades or exams, I add a body part to a pen-drawn hangman in my notebook. By my calculation, she has been noosed 42 times.

Class attendance is an integral part of my film teacher’s obsession. All students are required to sign in twice: once at the start of her class and again at the end, and two absences means a failing grade for the semester. I suppose members of the proletariat need to learn how to comply with a time clock, to practice being tame and mindless workers, to experience what it feels like to receive a demerit or get fired. My teacher’s message is clear whether she realizes it or not: we can’t have CC students thinking they can be executives or controlling their own schedule.

Last semester, I took a tennis class and encountered another attendance-related absurdity. My teacher said all students must sit quietly in the gym for two hours on rainy days or suffer a lower grade. My classmates did not seem too bothered; I flat-out refused.

In addition to lowest common denominator learning and the flawed tendency to focus on grades, tests and attendance, there is one final trend I find at community colleges. Teachers often go overboard in an effort to control students’ behavior in the classroom. I call this the “nun with the ruler” syndrome.

He didn’t look like a nun, but my basic computer skills teacher would reprimand students who touched their computer keyboard before they were told to do so. If he’d owned a ruler, he’d surely be a serial whacker. He also exhibited paranoia about cheating. He thought every student was itching to glance at someone else’s paper, so he’d pace the room with an eagle eye.

Five years ago, I convinced my 62-year-old husband Charles to take this computer class with me. We sat side-by-side, and the “nun” got the impression Charles was cheating. Charles resented being treated like a child, so he defiantly refused to study and received low marks on tests. Whenever he got an answer right, the teacher assumed he’d stolen it from my paper. In addition, Charles kept touching his keyboard during class and getting admonished for it. This made him seem like a troublemaker.

What the instructor didn’t know was that Charles had a law degree from Oxford University and was an English Barrister, California attorney and Judge Pro Tem. He had no reason to cheat in an entry-level computer class.

One day, Charles said, “I need to leave class early. I have to be in court.”

The teacher shook his head in a condescending manner--assuming Charles to be a criminal in addition to an underperforming bum—and asked, “Now, what did you do, Charles?”

We told him he was sitting as a judge. It was hilarious, but at the same time, disturbing to know that a brilliant man who had excelled at Oxford—where showing up for class was never required--could barely survive the oppressive regime of a community college despot.

Research shows that community college students are as much as 31% more likely than similar four-year college students to drop plans to obtain a bachelor’s degree after two years of higher education. The CC students in the study initially had the same grades, abilities and academic motivation as the four-year students. They were similar with respect to race, class, gender and age, and did not have greater responsibilities at work or home. The findings suggest that there is something inherent about community college that makes students lose interest in education.

Although CC campuses have a less collegiate feel—a factor that surely disadvantages students—treatment in the classroom is also a likely factor.

Teachers should not coddle students, drown them in rules or stifle creativity. They should not obsess over grades and attendance, but rather encourage initiative, trust, freedom and personal responsibility. They should replace true-false tests with essays, and focus on big picture learning with the assumption that their students will become managers, business owners, industry leaders and high earners.

Forty-six percent of all undergraduates are enrolled in the 1200 community colleges in the United States, so there’s a lot at stake. I suggest we relegate the community college stereotype to the same fate as the stick figured man in my film production notebook.

Stephen Colbert Smokes Out Political Ickiness

2007-11-06T22:21:00.000-08:00

I’m no slacker when it comes to politics, but I almost fell off my balance ball when I saw Carol Fowler, the chair of the South Carolina Democratic party, tell Stephen Colbert that her little committee of 16 didn’t think he was “quite ready to be president.” I hate to be the Col-bearer of bad news, but in case you haven’t heard, they voted to keep him off the ballot.

The funnyman had failed the party’s “viable candidate” test despite the fact that one poll showed him statistically tied with Joe Biden and ahead of Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel; and another gave him 13% of the vote in a three-way race with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Until that moment, I had no idea that a few political party elites could decide subjectively who was viable and vote to scrap the others before America could have its say. Could a not-so-sweet 16 reject Hillary Clinton willy-nilly if they believed a female had no chance? Is this a backstage glimpse of democracy in action? Shouldn’t legitimacy require objective standards?

Fowler’s words felt like fowl play (that’s southern for chicken ordure) and no doubt ticked off millions of young people who had crept out from behind “down with politics” placards to vote for the first time. The sentiment is expressed best on Youtube with the lyrics: “Get even, vote Stephen… Show them you’re disgusted…. The system’s busted….Stick it to the man.”

In the end, did “the man” (aka the establishment) stick it to Colbert and his fans, or did “the man” puncture its own fantastically undemocratic balloon? I say the balloon has lost its air; there will be backlash for refusing to lend Mr. Popularity a “members only” jacket. For example, there are those who have now vowed to deep six both parties, grinning, “Take that closed-door Dems. And take that backroom Republicans, who treated John McCain in a similarly unacceptable fashion during the 2000 New York presidential primary.”

By shutting the door on Colbert’s candidacy, some argue the political establishment has revealed its true colors are not red, white and blue. Instead, they secretly salute the flag of monopoly, manipulation, disenfranchisement and hypocrisy.

Ralph Nader would agree. He has no love for the Republican or Democratic Party. In fact, the consumer advocate has recently filed a lawsuit against the Dems for conspiring to intimidate and use other underhanded tactics to prevent him from the 2004 presidency. Nader’s attorney says it was a “shameful anti-democratic process by a party that claims to be a democratic party.”

The two parties are private organizations with the legal right to choose their candidates however they wish. They can evaluate party loyalty, use ideological litmus tests, weigh campaign nest eggs, cave to daddy’s political connections or allow a committee of 16 to call shots “out” even when the masses would rule them in bounds.

Muckraker Colbert has shed a light on this irksome game. It is particularly unappetizing because the two parties have a quasi-public reality to them. They are like public utility companies in that they get all the business all the time: a candidate has little chance of winning--especially the presidency--unless he or she is affiliated with one of the two giants. In addition, the parties simulate nonprofits, saying they exist to benefit the public good. Have you ever heard a Democrat or Republican admit it’s all about increasing party power and achieving a monopoly; and well, curses to the little people?

The South Carolina Democrats blundered big time. The assured media coverage of the state and of their party—not to mention the voters who would have been brought into the system--would have made it all worthwhile in the end.

Plus there is the education factor. 1.3 million Colbert Report viewers got an entertaining dose of Civics 101 night after night, including information on campaign finance laws, political action committees and Democratic Party “hoop jumping.” It is conceivable they were shedding a few layers of a well-entrenched apathy at each sitting.

As a native-born Georgia girl, I once dreamt of crushing the triangular state to the north. But I completely lost the urge because Colbert made South Carolina seem downright warm and fuzzy. Now that Colbert’s been rejected, I associate the state with a bunch of Old Guard fuddy duddies. Is that really the reputation South Carolina wants, in addition, of course, to its inferior peach status?

Colbert’s fake campaign was arguably less phony than those of competitors because the comedian was honest about the politics-as-usual hustle. Plus the entertaining Everyman offered Independents a place to hang their hats with hope that a mountain of headgear could eventually transform the two parties into relatively harmless molehills.

According to the book Independent Nation, 40 percent of American voters (and 44 percent of those between ages 18 and 29) in 2000 called themselves Independents, and the number has been growing steadily for some time. How has the two-party grip become an immovable object when so many people have jumped overboard or never climbed onto the boat?

Maybe Colbert and his campaign soldiers should seize the helm, starting The-Party’s-Over Party and giving it one platform: to end the two-party stranglehold. It might be the only way to foist the “good ole boys” from their threadbare captain’s chair.

The time has come to end political ickiness, folks.

SB 1818: The Devil’s in the Density Bonus Details

2007-10-23T09:51:00.000-07:00

SB 1818, California’s density bonus law is misguided. The situation is exacerbated by the LA City Council’s proposal for local implementation, which increases density bonuses to 35%, well beyond that mandated by state law.

The City Council should refuse to comply with SB 1818. After all, they disregarded the wishes of the US Government by proclaiming LA a sanctuary city and by recently reaffirming Special Order 40. If they can ignore federal law regarding illegal immigration, why can’t they ignore a bad state law on housing?

SB 1818 will hurt those it purports to help. It will put “below market rate” buyers in property prisons where they can lose their down payment and equity. It will hurt market-rate buyers who have to compensate for the low, fixed HOA fees of their neighbors. It will lead to housing stock decreases and an unnecessary decimation of zoning laws. It will mean an onslaught of infrastructure problems.

The “housing affordability crisis” is a myth. Today, a person can buy a condo in the San Fernando Valley for $82,000 and a house for $299,000; and prices are on the decline. Apartment rents start at $525 per month. A five-bedroom house in Valley Glen goes for as little as $1600 per month.

Paternalistic housing laws are unnecessary and destructive. The Los Angeles City Council should find ways to encourage developers to build market-rate units in areas where new units will be naturally affordable. Public-private partnerships between government and real estate industry professionals should be explored as an avenue for increasing homeownership.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky was the first to criticize the Los Angeles proposal in a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa. My comments were forwarded to the Mayor and City Council in October 2007.

Gnomes, Smiley Faces and the LA Gay Debate

2007-08-16T09:10:00.000-07:00

I was one of the 250 people invited to attend the televised LOGO / HRC Democratic debate in Los Angeles, which focused on lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. From my second row seat, I spent a good deal of time bobbing around the head of a husky Department of Homeland Security officer in order to get a view of the stage. He told me that he had a mission: to protect Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I don’t think “pissing me off ” was part of that mission, but I could be wrong.

There was one benefit to my seat: witty gay men surrounded me and editorialized on every issue. Like smart, lovable gnomes, they guarded the gay agenda. They opined when they thought a candidate had fumbled or advanced the ball, and revealed the show’s behind-the-scenes happenings. This included details about how half the crew had volunteered without pay to help with the production—putting in hundreds of hours—simply because they were thrilled the presidential hopefuls were addressing the LGBT community.

I got the skinny on Bill Richardson’s aim to get skinny; the New Mexico Governor had asked that no snacks be placed in his dressing room. He didn’t want to be tempted off of his diet. One gnome said to me, “If he can be tempted by Chex Mix, can we trust him when corporate campaign checks get tossed into the mix?” I couldn’t quite grasp the connection.

Sitting in the audience were Arianna Huffington, Doogie Hauser’s Neil Patrick Harris, and California Assemblyman Mike Feuer. LA City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl rushed to his seat and apologized for his tardiness, explaining how he’d been backstage coaching his candidate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The Democrats were questioned in the order they RSVP’d for the event; Obama was first, and Clinton was last. I could not help but think Clinton had planned it that way, as part of an “I’m experienced, unlike my opponent” strategy to get the last word. I could just hear her practicing in front of the mirror: I refuse to meet with leaders of rogue nations. I refuse to RSVP until after my rogue, I mean, esteemed competitors have done so…

Obama—following the “separate but equal” line and discounting the importance of the word “marriage”--argued that the rights afforded married couples should be given to the LGBT community. He described himself as a “supporter… of a strong version (of civil union);”a platform that did not produce smiley faces in the crowd because they felt the word “marriage” was central to true equality. I felt Obama’s biggest error was to suggest gay issues and homophobia are less important than inner city jobs, but the interviewers threw him a towel and let him walk.

The second victim tossed into the ring was Senator John Edwards--the “barbers union” and “scissors lobby” favorite—who also shied away from supporting same-sex marriage. Edwards blurted out, “it’s not true” in response to a rumor that he was uncomfortable around gay people. I heard my neighboring gnome mumble, “Thank goodness for that, Senator. Cause it looks like we’ve got you surrounded.” The audience was tightly wrapped in a U around the stage.

Governor Bill Richardson made the most pronounced blunder of the evening when he said that being gay was based on choice rather than genetic factors, a comment that surely came from a deprivation of brain food, most notably Chex Mix. Following the debate, his campaign sent an emergency email to the press, reversing his position.

Richardson—who also refused to support gay marriage--pounded the line, “I’ll do what’s achievable,” so many times that those around me wondered if yanking him off the stage would be achievable.

Senator Clinton—who wore a festive coral jacket--was not immune from the innocent “candidate bashing” game. One gnome said, “she’s dressed like one of us,” and another mused, “I almost wore the same outfit.” Like Obama, Edwards and Richardson, Clinton did not support the LGBT threshold issue: gay marriage; and like her opponents, she could not explain why. She merely called it a “personal position.” Clinton’s greatest stumble came when she said the LGBT community’s fight for equality “has not been a long term struggle yet,” implying that a group needs to suffer for a prescribed number of years before a politician takes notice. Could this argument be applied to the 2008 election? Is there a particular junior Senator from New York who has not struggled long enough in politics to be taken seriously as a candidate for President?

Former Senator Mike Gravel, the candidate I affectionately call the “grumpy outsider,” was not so grumpy that night, nor was he an outsider. The crowd loved it when he tossed his support to same-sex marriage, and predicted “five years from now, the marriage issue will be a non-issue.”

At first the gnome to my left said Gravel’s shoes were not up to par, “I am judging all candidates on their shoes and this one fails. This is a gay forum. He should know better.”

However, after Gravel proved himself to be an advocate for LGBT issues, the gnome altered his harsh position on footwear, ” I’ve changed my mind. I like what he said, so I’ve decided his shoes are ok.” I’m sure Gravel is relieved.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich strolled into the room as if he was the reigning champion of the LGBT agenda and gave his unwavering support to same-sex marriage. Like a cross between Tarzan and a Vermont Teddy Bear, he radiated a cuddly and caring confidence while beating on his chest that “the federal government (should) be the agent for change” and that as president, he would be a true leader, always taking a stand on principle. The panelists gushed over him, saying, “They told me not to fawn over you” and “you’re so evolved for a member of Congress.” My gnomes were all smiley faces and applause.

I feel Kucinich won the debate due to his sincerity and passion for the issues, while Gravel earned second place.

The gay debate was about the LGBT community “arriving” and formally entering the hallowed political halls. The gay debate was about fun and making tasteless jokes at the poor candidates’ expense. The gay debate was about moving towards a necessary equality.

And there’s absolutely nothing the matter with that.

Confessions of an Adopted Child

2007-08-08T23:30:00.000-07:00

I was born in the backseat of an Oldsmobile. My mother was in labor for 15 minutes, not long enough for my father to drive us to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. I popped out during the Drifters’ song “There Goes My Baby;” and moments later, there I went. In the emergency room parking lot, I was whisked away by a nurse, complying with a pre-arranged adoption pact and who was under the assumption—as were most adoption “experts” in 1960--that cutting ties should be done in an abrupt and swift fashion like pulling off an old Band-Aid. I would never see my natural parents again. At least that’s what everyone thought.

My adoptive family always had the appropriate number of cars, boats, housekeepers and country club parties; they were skilled at complying with “old money” standards. Those who had “new money”--such as show business folk or overnight get-rich schemers--were naturally inferior to us, or so I was told. By adopting me, my parents were on track for procuring a suitable number of children for a respectable family: two. My brother was adopted a couple of years later.

To the neighbors, everything looked primed and painted, but I was well acquainted with the wood filler and industrious termites beneath the surface. Partly, my negativity stemmed from a perception that I was an outsider with an entirely different value system. I did not qualify as the black sheep of the family for only one reason: sheep tend to be followers. I was more like the independent, black cat, who went my own way.

From grade school to high school, my classmates regularly criticized me for supporting the civil rights movement, for rejecting communism conspiracy theories, for failing to be enamored with all Republican candidates, and for not accepting Jesus as my Redeemer, despite the fact that I attended religious services six days a week.

It galled my friends when I lusted over the flashy, sequined evening gowns that the “new money” movie stars would wear to the latest premiere. Then I’d show up at the school dance wearing one and watch the whispers percolate throughout the room.

I felt ideologically out of place regardless of whether I was at home, school or the local mall and wondered why. Many studies point to a connection between biology and criminal behavior, but what about biology in relation to simple, run-of-the-mill beliefs? Could a person have a genetic predisposition towards particular moral values and favored activities? Could “nature” make a person more likely to support universal healthcare, gay marriage, educational vouchers or the National Rifle Association? Could DNA be a factor in a person’s distaste for vintage automobiles or her attraction to sports?

The answer seems to be yes. British and Australian researchers determined that twins who are reared apart think similarly on subjects ranging from sex, religion, politics, divorce, apartheid and tough-mindedness; and twin research at the University of Minnesota confirmed the finding. “Nurture” has little influence on a child’s personality. In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker makes the case that as much as 70% of the variation between individuals, in areas such as political leanings, personal philosophy, intelligence and personality, are derived from genes.

According to the Washington Monthly, a study conducted by Bruce Sacerdote found that biology rather than environment correlates with income. He learned that “being raised (as an adoptee) in a high-earning family doesn’t seem to have much effect (on the income of the child when she grows up), while being born (as a natural child) to a high-earning family does.” Did this mean I might have to give up those big-ticket gowns and go from being “old money” to “no money?”

Adult children often seek out their natural parents in order to address health concerns, such as to determine whether cancer or heart disease runs in the family; but I wondered if it could help a person better understand herself? I aimed to find out and started the search for my natural parents at the age of 25.

The process was jammed with roadblocks. Adoption records were closed; in other words, I was not supposed to gain access to names or identifying information. Although the bulk of my detective work took place by phone from my home in Los Angeles, at one point I traveled to the Atlanta adoption agency that had placed me and persuaded an employee to divulge the names of my mother and father.

When I was told “Wilson,” I anticipated a needle-in-the-haystack search and realized I had not even arrived at the farm. Today, there are two and a half million listings on Google with my father’s exact first and last name.

As I sleuthed after data, I picked up helpers along the way. Amiable strangers in Georgia, Maryland and Virginia—most of who lived in residences that were once occupied by my mother or father--volunteered to devote investigative hours and legwork to my pressing mission. I made calls. They made calls. In the end, I found my father’s former college and got his contact number from alumni records. I located my mother via a Baltimore school that had employed my grandmother.

I learned one parent is a university professor and author, and the other works for the U.S. Government in Washington D.C. They gave me up for adoption because they were in graduate school and did not plan to stay together. They didn’t.

In the end, I found parents—as well as aunts, cousins and a grandmother—who have values and interests akin to my own. They study philosophy, are environmental advocates, teach aerobics, have similar taste in art and suffer from the migraine headaches that have plagued me since I was a child.

My mother’s religious path detoured in the same way as mine. We were both raised Christian, then attended a Unitarian church for a while, and eventually converted to Reform Judaism.

Although my natural family is rich in heart, their pockets are not totally bare; so genetically speaking, it looks like I may be able to feed my “frock habit” for a few more years.

The ongoing connection with my kin has taught me why I am the way I am, and why I am unlike those who raised me. I appreciate my adoptive parents’ efforts, but have learned that one can never have too many parents.

Desperately Seeking DNA

2007-08-08T23:18:00.000-07:00

Maybe the recent Connecticut home invasion didn’t mesmerize us for months like the cable news soap operas I affectionately call “The Guiding Light of Anna Nicole Smith” and “As the World Turns around Natalee Holloway,” but it still got entangled in the media’s “news flash” net and held our collective attention for a full 48 hours. In the end, two men were arrested and charged with robbing, raping, and killing a suburban family as well as torching their home.

I was not overly surprised by the villainous events of that day. A 2005 U.S. Department of Justice report reveals there is one rape for every 1,000 Americans per year and six murders for every 100,000.

I was also not shocked when the story became the centerpiece on the marketplace of ideas dinner table that night. A review conducted by the Project for Excellence found that media outlets tend to replay the same select news pieces. This gives the stories a life of their own.

What perked my ears about the home invasion crime was the media’s obsession with a particular, seemingly out-of-place detail: one of the alleged perpetrators, Joshua Komisarjevsky, had been adopted. One newspaper went so far as to title its story, “Alleged Connecticut Killer Adopted as Baby.”

Why not title the story “Alleged Connecticut Killer Ate Lima Beans for Lunch?” Is it because lima beans rarely cause an average Joe to explode into a lawless rampage? Can “defective” genes be a precursor to crime?

Clearly, the adoptive family, the press, or both, accepted the premise that biological factors can trigger violence. It’s possible the family, hoping to distance themselves from the heinous act and convey that they have “good DNA,” pitched the “he’s not related to us” angle to reporters. It’s equally possible that members of the press decided this detail was somehow meaningful. Whatever the case, the idea was embedded in multiple articles, although there was no outward mention of a possible link between hereditary factors and criminal behavior.

Newspaper pieces and Internet blogs revealed how Komisarjevsky’s family struggled for years to straighten out the wayward boy, who became a burglar at the age of 14. Attempts to make him feel like part of the family were futile.

This reminded me of a disturbingly similar story from a 1999 60 Minutes segment, which described the case of Jeff Landrigan, a young man who was adopted at birth by a law-abiding family, but who now sits on death row for murder. Landrigan’s adoptive sister speculated that her brother had bad genes, adding, “I personally think that the day by brother was born, his fate was probably sealed…”

While on death row, Landrigan found out his birthfather was imprisoned on death row in another state and that his family tree was peppered with felons. He told 60 Minutes he believed crime was passed down in his family “like cancer or heart disease.”

A body of evidence supports Landrigan’s theory, although environmental influences are likewise powerful and should not be discounted. In Change Your Brain /Change Your Life, psychiatrist Daniel Amen states that the cingulate gyrus, curving through the center of the brain is hyperactive in murderers. Other researchers have determined that violent males have low levels of serotonin, a condition that has a high rate of heritability. The National Institute of Health conducted a study on the serotonin levels of prison inmates and determined with an 84 percent accuracy which ones would return to crime upon their release.

Dr. Sarnoff A. Mednick’s study of 14,427 adopted children, as discussed in the New York Times, reveals how a propensity to chronic criminal behavior may be passed through the genes. Although Mednick does not believe criminal behavior is directly passed down, he holds that certain biological factors that might be associated with crime can be inherited. He cites a biological predisposition towards substance abuse as an example.

What does this theory mean for the person looking to adopt? And what are the chances a newly acquired child will have gene-related difficulties? Although there do not seem to be any studies on this topic, it is possible there are a greater percentage of adoptees today with problematic tendencies. In the more puritanical past, a woman was more likely to give up her child simply to avoid stigma and social ostracism. She may have become pregnant while unmarried or involved in an affair, but beyond that was law-abiding and well adjusted. A woman who puts a child up for adoption today is arguably more likely to do so for pressing reasons, i.e. due to problems with illegal substances, imprisonment or family abuse, factors that could be hereditable. In addition, celebrities, such as Madonna and Angelina Jolie, make it fashionable and more common to adopt infants from foreign lands whose biological predispositions are unscreened and unknown.

On the other hand, it is possible there are a smaller number of adoptees today with so-called genetic flaws. Abortion is now an option for “troubled” women. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner say crime has declined over the past twenty years because “the pool of potential criminals (has) dramatically shrunk,” a fact they attribute to Roe vs. Wade. Although these authors are not arguing for biological connections to crime, they say women in adverse family environments are more likely to have children who grow up to be criminals, and these are typically the women who get the abortions.

In addition, adoptions have become more open and cooperative. According to the LA Times, adoptive and natural parents meet at least once in 90% of all infant adoptions, and 25% of these adoptions are completely open. This means an increasing number of birth parents and adoptive parents come together in some way, review each other’s physical and personal history and stay in contact. Genetic secrets are less likely to be locked away in bureaucratic clinics; problems can be confronted and resolved to some degree through positive environmental reinforcement.

Most scientists and psychologists will tell you the nature vs. nurture debate is complex and by no means resolved. Landrigan promoted the “my genes made me do it” argument in several court appeals. In the end, he lost. The US Supreme Court made the final ruling against him three months ago, and he is likely to be executed soon.

Komisarjevsky’s case is next and inquiring minds want to know: Will he desperately seek his DNA, or do what most defendants do and blame it on his “nurture” resume?

Unfortunately, the “lima beans defense” rarely works.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The Controversial Peter Singer

2007-06-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, I had the opportunity to eat, drink and make moral calculations with philosopher Peter Singer. The average person might think hanging out with a philosopher—even a renowned and accomplished one—would be a non-event or cause a pain in the brain, as in the soreness that can develop after a college class of induction, deduction and cerebral gymnastics. But as a lifelong fiancée of philosophy, I was thrilled that Dr. Singer agreed to meet with me.

Singer has the distinction of being the epiphany-trigger in my life. My first experience with him was on paper. In 1985, I read his book, In Defense of Animals, in which he talks about “speciesism,” a prejudice similar to racism and sexism in which humans believe they are superior to other species. Singer argues that nonhumans are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration and that an animal’s ability to feel pain should give him protection under the moral umbrella that humans typically reserve for themselves. This idea was like a starter pistol, signaling me to begin my mission to help the truly voiceless and defenseless members of society. I stopped eating meat that day.

When I heard that the normally reclusive Singer—who lives in Australia and New Jersey and who is called the Father of the Animal Rights movement-- would be speaking at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles about animals and art, I figured why not take him out for a bite? Controversial utilitarians have to eat, too.

Singer is controversial mostly because of his position on infanticide and euthanasia. For example, he holds it is morally proper in some circumstances to kill a severely incapacitated infant whose life would cause immense suffering for himself and his family. Singer comes to this conclusion in the same way he comes to every conclusion: by embarking upon a utilitarian calculation.

A utilitarian deems an action right or wrong based upon the consequences of that action. He tallies the positives (hedons) and negatives (dolors) of the situation in advance and selects the course of action that is likely to result in the most positives or hedons.

Deontological moral theory is, in effect, the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontologists are hedon and dolor haters, and argue that consequences are inconsequential in the moral realm. Deontological theory states that people have certain duties or moral obligations which are based upon some absolute authority; the authority might be religion, universal reason, natural rights, natural law, or some other entity altogether. A deontologist would most likely believe it is wrong to kill an infant, regardless of the child’s level of disability, a precept that might be supported by Scripture.

In order to impress Dr. Singer, I figured I had better be on top of the “utilitarian calculation” game. No slacking. I had to be on my guard every second, ready to shift my actions to the right “utilitarian” course of action. I did not want this great philosopher to construe his time spent with me as in any way immoral.

The first order of business was to choose a restaurant. Singer had only put forth one requirement: there had to be a vegan entrée on the menu. But as a good utilitarian, I knew I had to weigh a parade of other factors. His hotel was in Santa Monica, so I chose a place nearby so as to save fuel and not contribute to global warming. I selected a totally vegan place, as a gesture to encourage exemplary establishments to be fruitful and multiply. I ultimately decided it was ok for the restaurant to be situated in Santa Monica after grappling with whether the area is more or less moral than surrounding communities.

I picked up Singer from his hotel and flipped on the car’s air conditioning because I wanted my important guest to be comfortable. In a polite way, he explained how my action was destroying the environment and suggested we simply lower the windows. I couldn’t believe it; I had already screwed up! I quietly chastised myself for failing to make the necessary moral calculation.

My second test came when I was confronted with whether I should make a left turn; and in so doing, hold up a long line of vehicles behind me. The alternative was to drive all the way to a signal light, turn onto a less busy street, do a three-point turn into a driveway, go back to the original intersection and make a right turn, an undertaking that would take an extra five minutes. Most people in our “I’m entitled,” me-first society feel morally justified in holding up a long line of other drivers, some who may be rushing to an emergency or who may be late for a critical appointment. But would a utilitarian come to this conclusion? I decided not and opted to inconvenience only my erudite passenger and myself.

The vegan restaurant was like a beehive, bustling with customers and lean on seating. We were directed to an airless corner where we were expected to jam ourselves into a pint-sized table. Part of me wanted to put down my philosophical foot, refuse the cramped conditions and demand a roomy, nearby table. But I heeded to utilitarianism, resolved that a party of four deserved the extra space. As the heat intensified during the meal, I began to regret my decision because it was “dolor city” in that stuffy corner.

Singer sipped on his mixture of beet, apple and carrot juice as he explained why he was leaning towards supporting Barak Obama for President. We discussed Congress’ proposed immigration legislation and how the issue is dealt with in Australia where his three kids live.

When we exhausted the media’s prized topics, we delved into the hypotheticals that make philosophy a cocktail party favorite; such as “if a trolley is rolling down a hill, should you let it kill your own child or a stranger’s child” and “is there a difference between killing someone and letting him die?” We even explored the always-popular free will debate. I asked Singer if he was choosing to have an enchilada or whether he was merely picking the entrée as a pawn of the universe. He thought he was choosing, but I argued that he was probably just a chess piece in a board game called “life.”

After spending two hours with Dr. Singer, what struck me most about the man was his humility, flexibility and open-mindedness. He is able to examine an issue with a fresh pad of paper. He lacks the cumbersome, preconceived ideas that stalk most individuals; and he is willing, even eager, to alter his opinion when new data and better arguments come to the fore. I find many people to be the reverse: stubborn, immovable objects, bogged down by pages and pages of notes, unwilling to white them out under any circumstance.

Perhaps this illuminates the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological mind. Utilitarianism by its very nature welcomes, even mandates, ideological pliability while deontological ethics thrives on being a moral tank, oblivious to its environment.

Society reacts to the utilitarian / deontological dance. In The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger says that people invent ideas, but forget they are the architects of these ideas, later attributing them to an outside, religious source. Non-religious precepts seem to migrate down a similar path. They become rooted social norms like a brazen statue at the center of the town square. They may emanate from a deontological or utilitarian source, but they become more deontological, immutable and transcendent as they stand erect at the center of people’s lives. The statue is virtually impervious to the elements, in part because the average townsperson leans towards resisting change. It is easy and comforting to reinforce the laws, moral rules, and codes of conduct.

Utilitarianism may receive low marks in some circles because it has been manipulated to justify actions. We have all heard excuses like, “I had to cheat on my taxes because I figured the government has enough money” or “I didn’t return the lost wallet because I figured I need the money more than the other person does.” This “figuring” or calculating is a misapplication of the utilitarian method; it does not reflect what an impartial observer would decide. It reflects only the outcome the thief seeks: to avoid taxes or keep the lost wallet.

Despite periodic misuse, utilitarianism has a critical role to play in society. It can chisel away at or altogether overturn deontological values, which philosopher Jeremy Benthem claims are merely camouflage for the popular morality of the day. Utilitarianism allows undiscovered evidence and improved arguments to emerge. It is our best hope for a improved future, and we should recognize it as such.

I thank Dr. Singer for being a living example of the flexibility of utilitarianism. And from now on, when someone asks me to guess who’s coming to dinner, I will hope it’s a utilitarian. Especially a controversial one.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Illegal Status

2007-04-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

This is an actual letter by Iowan resident Donald Ruppert to Senator Tom Harkin. This brillaint piece deserves to be posted for all to see.

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA

Seems Ruppert has the right idea. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The Affordable Housing Myth and Blaming the Condo Conversion Bogeyman

2007-04-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles City Council has been looking at the issue of condo conversions / tenant relocation costs and affordable housing.

Condo conversions provide entry-level property ownership opportunities. It is a shame these opportunities will be less available in the future.

Paying $9000 to relocate an individual and $19,000 to relocate a family is exorbitant. Tenants could turn "relocation" into a profession, moving into a building likely to be slated for conversion and getting paid handsomely to move.

The lack of affordable housing is a myth; I am baffled when affordable housing advocates and others talk like there is a serious problem. It is not my experience as a Realtor for the past 20 years. Sure, it is expensive to live in Beverly Hills, Marina del Rey or West Hollywood, but those with low or moderate income cannot expect to live in the most affluent areas.

I think the affordable housing myth has developed from an entitlement mentality. Some people seem to think they are entitled to live in million dollar plus neighborhoods regardless of their ability to pay the prices in those areas. I am offended by this perspective. First time buyers and low to moderate income renters should expect to compromise a little on area. Over time, the person will most likely be able to move to a more desirable location, and up and up and up. My clients do this all the time. They start out small. After a few years, most are living in prestigious neighborhoods.

My 20 year old daughter is looking for a place around $700 - $800 per month right now, and there are plenty of singles, one bedrooms and guest houses that fit this description. Utilities are often included.

I recently rented my Valley Glen 5 bedroom house for $1700 per month (about $300 per bedroom). I rent my 4 bedroom Sherman Oaks home for $2300 per month (about $600 per bedroom). There are many affordable homes in the Valley (and many with rentable guest houses) that sell in the $400,00 - $500,000 range.

Affordable housing advocates and entitlement-minded tenants often tell me, "Well, I don't like the Valley. I don't want to live in the Valley." This answer is not likely to win friends and influence people, especially those who have worked hard to get where they are today.

Those who have worked hard and sacrificed do not want to subsidize others to live in multi-million dollar Westside communities.

I say a short drive over the hill is in order. The Valley is an excellent place to live! It has less traffic, better parking and family-oriented communities (a benefit that high-rise sections of the Westside lack). I would not move to the Westside even if I could afford to do so..

The Value of a Diamond is Relative

2007-04-03T02:27:00.000-07:00

And the relative is dad.

Maybe you can’t afford a diamond, but someday you can be a diamond.

According to Reuters, a woman in Germany asked the court to allow her to transform her dead father into a diamond. Ashes (even human ones) can be pressed, heated and made into synthetic diamonds, a process that has existed since the mid-1950’s.

The court would have agreed, but did not feel there was proof that her father wanted to be a precious stone.

It’s comforting to know that a diamond can be a girl’s best friend. Literally.

Are You the Terrorist Next Door? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Green Scare

2007-01-27T08:52:00.000-08:00

I was an ordinary American until November 27, 2006 when I became a terrorist or more accurately what I call a “stand-by terrorist.” Perhaps I cannot truly own this newfound nickname until the government decides to prosecute me for word crimes, if that day ever arrives. Until then, I just think of myself as being on stand-by, just as are most--if not all--Americans, whether they realize it or not.

You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as “domestic terrorism” when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.

You may ask, what does this have to do with me because I’m no nature fan or animal lover? Well, it could eventually have very much to do with you because the AETA--a natural child of the Patriot Act--is likely to be the first of many assaults on the social justice movement in favor of corporations and other moneyed interests. If you think you may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something, anything, then you had better be very concerned.

You should also be concerned about whether law enforcement protects you from the Bin Ladens of the world or fritters away your hard-earned tax dollars investigating pacifists. The American Civil Liberties Union says the FBI uses “counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate (nonviolent) domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies.” An FBI special agent recently told me that planting undercover agents at legal, peaceful events--with hopes that they will somehow learn about illegal activities--is a favored tactic of the bureau.

What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey’s 15 million viewers in 1996?

It is indeed possible because the AETA is overbroad, vague and subject to the whims of law enforcement, as evidenced last year when six young, New Jersey website operators became the first individuals convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges. The young people were part of the Stop Huntington Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, which targeted the Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) animal research labs. The website operators did nothing more than assert their First Amendment rights: they posted videotape of tortured dogs inside HLS and reported the legal and illegal handiwork of activists, which eventually caused the corporation to lose profits and to be dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The FBI were unable to catch the underground activists, so they targeted the website operators, who are serving up to six years in prison for their speech.

If the government fails to catch a thief or saboteur, should it be allowed to pursue the CNN reporter who delivers the news? Or an outspoken op-ed columnist? Or six kids from New Jersey with a website? The AETA ignores Shakespeare’s recommendation, “Don’t shoot the messenger,” potentially stigmatizing a “speaker” with the most heinous, post-9/11 label in America: terrorist.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman to talk about Mad Cow disease on her television show. Lyman knew first-hand how cows--even diseased ones--were fed being to other cows and how their diets were supplemented with ground-up dogs, cats and road kill. He explained the meat production process, and Winfrey offered that she would never eat another burger. The audience cheered. On the following day, cattle futures plummeted, and the financial disaster was labeled the “Oprah Crash.”

Estimated losses to the beef industry were $10 - $12 million, and a group of cattlemen filed a lawsuit against Winfrey and Lyman under a Texas food disparagement law. They wanted compensation for loss of profits. Winfrey and Lyman won, but only after spending over a million dollars on legal fees. In his book, Mad Cowboy, Lyman says that those who sued “apparently believe that the First Amendment… was not meant to be interpreted so broadly as to allow people to say unpleasant things about beef.”

If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is entirely possible.

But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say to Winfrey, “Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows before slaughter,” his comment could be interpreted as a violation of the AETA, more specifically as a “conspiracy to interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise.” Without a transcript from the show, one cannot know what casual exchanges floated between Winfrey and Lyman that day. It may seem far-fetched to envision the pair in prison, branded terrorists--especially since Winfrey is affluent and popular--but it is not far-fetched within the parameters of this poorly drafted legislation, which leaves much open to interpretation by law enforcement and the court system.

Just as the AETA chills speech, it has disturbing ramifications for those who commit slightly illegal misdeeds. The Act can transform misdemeanors into federal crimes, and it can turn ordinary Americans--who, for example, post illegal signs or engage in graffiti--into domestic terrorists.

Let’s assume a high school senior enters a national science fair, and his project involves decapitating live mice. His mother objects to the experiment as cruel and immoral, but the son ignores her. She takes matters into her own hands by stealing the mice and placing them in a loving home, then smashing the remainder of the project and shoving it in the trash. Science fair projects are specifically protected under the AETA, as are vivisection labs, factory farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, furriers and rodeos. The mother has intentionally damaged her son’s animal-related property, which means the U.S. government may arrest her as a terrorist and throw her in jail.

Let’s take another case. A small boy is murdered, and his older sister is devastated. Because law enforcement officers fail to read the killer his rights and bungle other aspects of the case, he goes free. A year later, the sister discovers the killer owns a horse boarding facility in a neighboring state. She drives to the location and paints his fence with the words, “He murdered my little brother. Don’t board your horses here” in attempt to ruin his business and warn customers about the danger. The girl has intentionally caused damage to an animal enterprise. Under the AETA, her graffiti can be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

As a final example, a journalist writes an article about combating the AETA. He suggests peppering the country with signs that read “ALF.” “ALF” is an acronym for the Animal Liberation Front, a group that has vandalized companies that use and kill animals. When “ALF” is scribbled on a fence, building or sign, the FBI is automatically called to investigate. This is routine because the bureau considers the group the number one domestic terrorist threat, even though the ALF has never injured a human or animal.

Investigating the acronym “ALF” would be a laborious task if thousands of signs throughout the country had to be checked. The sign placement strategy would run law enforcement ragged, educate the public about the absurdity of the AETA, and further water down the word “terrorist” so that all Americans could come to realize how they themselves qualify as “terrorists on stand-by.”

At some point, it is likely an animal enterprise owner or employee would play “the fear card.” A butcher, for example, could claim to be frightened by an “ALF” placard adjacent to his shop, alleging an impending attack by angry animal rights activists.

It is a violation of the AETA to intentionally induce fear (of bodily harm) in those associated with an animal enterprise, even when no property is damaged. The “victim”--or the butcher, in this case--would determine what constitutes fear, and it would be easy for him to prove nefarious intentions since everyone knows animal advocates would like to see butchers out of business. Posting illegal signs is common in most neighborhoods, such as when advertising garage sales and political candidates, yet fines are rarely imposed. In the case of “ALF” placards, the “graphic artists” could be arrested as terrorists; the journalist who originated the idea could also be at risk.

It is important to know that AETA terrorism charges cannot be brought against someone when the “target” is unaffiliated with an animal enterprise. If the son’s science project had involved no animals, if the murderer had owned a bicycle shop instead of a horse ranch, and if the illegally posted signs had advertised an estate sale, the FBI would not be called. This demonstrates how the AETA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law.

Why should biomedical corporations and their executives--as well as other animal industries that bestow hefty campaign donations upon Washington politicos--be provided with a special law? Aren’t there more (or equally) deserving “targets” in need of activist protection, such as abortion clinics, anti-union employers, gay-run businesses and houses of worship? Should there be an Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others? Or would these niche laws further impede efforts to identify real terrorism, as the AETA does?

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the “terrorist” tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

By the same token, it is unfair to drag a mother off to prison as a terrorist due to bad luck, in that her son decides to embark upon an animal project. If she had destroyed his chemistry vials, she would not be facing terrorism charges. Her compassionate response to animal abuse should make her a hero, not an Al-Qaeda operative. It is dangerous to dilute the word “terrorism” so it loses all meaning, so it describes the most caring and justice-loving members of our society, and so it theoretically applies to the entire citizenry, many who sweat nervously in “standby” waiting rooms.

The AETA may lead to consequences its originators did not foresee. It may embolden aboveground activists who no longer need to limit their activities to that which is legal. After all, they are viewed as terrorists either way. Why should they cheer from the sidelines when they can run with the ball?

Inequitable and oppressive laws can propel pacifists into action, as depicted in the movie, Catch A Fire. The film relates a true story about an apolitical black man who is wrongly accused of being a terrorist by South African authorities in 1980. After enduring arrest and interrogation, he comes to the realization that it is only right to be a “terrorist,” so as to combat the entrenched apartheid of the day. He becomes a rebel fighter, planting an incendiary device at an oil refinery. Ironically, the government--convinced it is keeping him under control by choking him with the heavy hand of the law--wakes him up to injustice and ignites him into action. Animal liberation is no less a noble cause, and a similar result could be expected. Who could be next to catch a fire?

America is about nothing if it is not about fairness and free speech. The AETA does not comport with this image. It is unjust and unconstitutional, and it interferes with the prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.

Once we faced a “red scare”; now we are bombarded with a “green scare.” The time has come to ask yourself: Do you really want to be on stand-by or do you want to take a stand?

And are you now, or could you someday be, the terrorist next door?

The Diet of Distraction

2007-01-05T15:51:00.000-08:00

I am not a diet guru, the czar of calorie counting or a member of the binge police. I don’t have a cookbook, weight-reduction program or fad to peddle. In fact, I’d say “experts” who push a single, “one-size fits all” weight-loss approach are a few fries short of a happy meal or a few sandwiches short of a picnic. It’s disingenuous to think there is only one way to help the plump.

I’m a big fan of my own creation--the diet of distraction—but I’m the first to admit it may help some drop pounds and lead others over the pig-out cliff. Because we are all unique, a habit that fattens Jack Sprat may not faze his wife.

The diet of distraction is based on two premises: forget about food and throw yourself into an activity that will propel you away from your gluttonous routine. In order to succeed, you must not weigh your food, mark your calories on a chart, or look up codes in a tiny book. How many times have you blurted out, “Oh no, I’m not allowed to have any more number threes (miniature puddings) today?” Then, all you think about are miniature puddings.

To calorie count or diary-keep is to think about food, and this is a no-no when you’re committed to the diet of distraction. Thinking about food leads to obsessing over food. Obsessing over food, leads to temptation. Temptation leads to overeating and never escaping the dreaded see-saw.

I know a lot about see-saws as a former member of See-saws Anonymous. In my teens and early twenties, I could both lose weight and gain it back before a lemon torte defrosted. There were times when I fasted for 17 days with nothing but water—a feat I can no longer accomplish as an adult. Once, I refused to go out with a man for two months because I felt too fat. He thought I didn’t like him. Crazy men. Don’t they understand women at all?

Then there were those nights of extreme exercise. I would leave my childhood home at 10 pm and run to my high school and back in the dark--a 24-mile journey--carrying a rock for protection and hiding behind trees when I saw oncoming vehicles. You never know who’s a mass murderer. At 9:00 am the next morning, you’d find me limping up my driveway, convinced I was suddenly skinny.

As I got older, I left behind the playground and the see-saw. I discovered some interesting tendencies in myself. I found that I ate very little when I vacationed, when I moved to a new place and when I became immersed in an interesting project. Vacationing and moving were projects in themselves. I realized that my problem had less to do with overeating than it did over-thinking. The trick was mostly to forget about food and to stay busy.

Furthermore, the diet of distraction required me to grocery shop on a full stomach and to think very little about my purchases beyond making sure they were reasonably healthy. My rule was no meat products (including fish and chicken), no fried foods and no sweets. I did not plan meals ahead or coordinate how rice and squash might go with a salad. That would, of course, be thinking too much.

I found it advantageous to refrain from buying my favorite starches, knowing that if I liked something too much, I might be tempted to over-indulge. I never felt deprived, because my life was focused on projects, rather than food. When I dined at restaurants, I ate what I wanted, as long as it was vegetarian.

The tendency to overeat is one many of us have experienced. According to the Obesity Society, more than 64% of Americans are either overweight or obese. The U.S. Surgeon General blames obesity for 300,000 deaths every year, and 3.8 million Americans weigh over 300 pounds.

Health is fulfillment, not just what you put in your mouth. Health means using your brainpower to realize your personal calling rather than to calculate caloric intake or weigh a slice of bread. Health means putting energy towards the positive rather than obsessing over the negative.

You might want to try the diet of distraction. It’s (not) food for thought.

Democracy Can Be Muddy

2006-12-19T01:23:00.000-08:00

The neighborhood councils have been criticized for mudslinging and infighting at meetings. But democracy is messy. Conflicts often represent a sincere effort to communicate with each other and build a foundation for the future.

Establishing dispute resolution commissions in every planning area to arbitrate neighborhood council related disputes, however, would reduce the time the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) and the City Attorney spend sorting out conflicts. The commissions would provide an impartial body to hear complaints, so that valuable neighborhood council meeting time could be reserved for important issues, rather than personality disputes.

I have attended meetings for over 50 neighborhood councils in the past two years and can report that the system is a success. The councils are improving their communities and empowering stakeholders. They should not be faulted for getting a little muddy in the process. We must be patient while the neighborhood councils get their houses in order.

Proposition H: Housing Hocus-Pocus

2006-11-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

If I could wave my magic wand, Proposition H—the billion-dollar “affordable” housing bond measure--would disappear from the November 7th stage, and the Prop H supporters would be revealed as illusionists.

These illusionists want you to accept “official statistics” about a “dismal” L.A. housing situation, but these figures amount to pulling a rabbit out of a hat; they are not grounded in reality. According CNN Money, Los Angeles is statistically more affordable than 43 other large cities, and Forbes says LA has a less expensive rental market than cities such as Boston, San Francisco and Honolulu.

Middle-income Angelenos buy property every day in this city, so why should we believe Prop H illusionists who argue that families making over six figures need financial assistance, especially when this financial assistance will come from taxpayers with lower incomes than they have?

The illusionists want to hide the fact that wealthy developers--often masquerading as nonprofit organizations--are the true backers and beneficiaries of the measure. The illusionists hope to distract you with tear-jerking tales about how H will help the elderly and the down-and-out in downtown L.A., but this is merely a device to gain sympathy and votes. Numerous elderly and lower income Angelenos will be seriously hurt if H passes because they will be paying higher taxes, and not receiving any benefits.

The illusionists want you to believe that this billion-dollar housing bond will cost you no more than a Frappucino, when in truth it could cost you personally over $10,000 during the 30-year bond period, with absolutely no benefit.

Proposition H is comprised of three parts, and like oil and water, the parts do not mix. Part One is the “water” or the sustenance factor. It allocates approximately one third of the funds for the homeless and truly indigent of our city, a noble cause which may or may not need supplemental funding. Los Angeles’ current surplus of $717 million could be used for this purpose.

Parts Two and Three, the oily or “subsidizing the rich” components, do not in any way merit funding and necessitate a vote against the entire proposition. Part Two—which will receive another one-third of the funds--is nothing more than the latest brand of rent control, and the traditional arguments against it apply. Studies show that rent stabilized buildings—even those that start out new--eventually become dilapidated and drive up the cost of market-rate rents, hurting the poor and middle class in the end. The developers who build the projects are the true beneficiaries.

Rent control can also impede those it is supposed to help. Rent control tenants who experience any degree of financial success often do not buy, but instead remain psychological prisoners, sacrificing equity-building opportunities and hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to cling to their cheap rentals. “Clinging,” a common practice, negatively impacts affordability for others.

Part Three is related to home buying and is the most problematic or slippery component of Prop H. It taxes “property owner” families so that “non-property owner” families (even those making six figure incomes) can buy real estate. If Prop H passes, lower and middle income Anglenos will be required to subsidize those who make more money than they do. A family of four with an income of $103,950 could receive Prop H money from a family with a mere $50,000 income. This gross injustice could lead to financial hardship, even foreclosure, for existing property owners, such as the elderly on fixed incomes.

The illusionists are inaccurate when they say H helps middle-income workers. I did a calculation for five of my real estate clients—a small business owner, an advertising sales employee, a police officer, a construction worker and a teacher—to determine the impact of Proposition H on their wallets. They all made sacrifices to buy homes within the last two years, including investing in bread and butter rental properties. If H passes, all will be seriously penalized for their hard work. They may be forced to sell or to lose their properties to foreclosure.

Over the 30-year bond period, the small business owner with a family annual income of $90,000 would pay between $23,214 and $34,980. In the end, he will have paid one-third to one-fourth of a year’s income for nothing.

The salesperson with a family income of 80,000 would pay between $17,958 and $27,060. The police officer with a family income of $70,000 would pay from $9,636 to $14,520.

The construction worker with a family income of $60,000 would pay from $4,380 to $6,600, and the teacher with a family income of $48,000 would pay from $2,190 to $3,300. It should also be noted that these numbers are based upon the probably underestimated figures provided in the Voter Information Pamphlet; they could be higher due to interest rate hikes in the bond.

Prop H is flawed in other ways: it is not financed by everyone. Wealthy renters and many corporations pay nothing. Why should a tenant who makes $300,000 per year and rents a $9,000 per month mansion in Brentwood be exempt while the lower income teacher who lives in Van Nuys be taxed? Why should a multi-national corporation leasing retail space for $30,000 per month pay nothing while the construction worker who resides in Canoga Park be burdened?

Prop H was rushed through City Hall rather than vetted by the people of our city, and it is detail-deficient and ill-timed. There are no specifics in H about how the money will be spent, leaving one to conclude that the measure may fund wacky Inclusionary Zoning-type plans. H is badly timed because the real estate market is stumbling; it is the wrong time to conjure up new units that the market cannot absorb. Socialized programs hurt affordability in the end; the market adjusts itself to compensate for unsustainable price hikes and dips.

Magic is not necessary to increase the number of homeowners in Los Angeles. There is a knowledge deficit, not a housing deficit. Education rather than subsidization is the key. A huge number of middle-income families can afford to buy, but simply need information as to how. This is where Realtors and lenders come in. Public/private partnerships between government and real estate professionals provide the key to increasing homeownership.

Vote against smoke and mirrors. Vote against the tax dollar disappearing act. Vote against Housing Hocus-Pocus. Vote against Prop H.

My Adventure Presenting Animal Rights Philosophy to the FBI

2006-05-13T22:18:00.000-07:00

On April 13, 2006, I received a strange phone call at my Los Angeles home from an FBI Special Agent Instructor. I’ll call him Andy.

It was strange because the FBI had never before contacted me. Did I breach some obscure statute? I remembered a book of “absurd laws,” which said that in my neighborhood it was illegal to spit on the sidewalk, drive in a housecoat or allow animals to mate publicly within 1,500 feet of a school or church. Had my little, white terrier been committing impure acts at Erwin Elementary?

It turned out Special Agent Andy wanted me to fly to Quantico, Virginia (near Washington D.C.) to lecture law enforcement executives and managers from around the world about animal philosophy, keeping in mind “the mindset and methodologies of terrorists and the government’s response.”

It was an unusual request—even for an animal rights advocate, such as myself, with a doctorate in philosophy--so I did what anyone would do: I contacted my family, friends and criminal attorney.

I don’t really have a criminal attorney, but I have a friend who regularly handles high-profile cases. He furrowed his bushy brow and cautioned, “Don’t do anything. Let me check this out first. The FBI railroad innocent people all the time.”

My anxiety multiplied when an animal person said, “only traitors talk to the government” and a non-animal friend advised me to take a lawyer with me and to refuse to “name names” when “testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee.”

“I don’t have any names,” I protested, but then remembered a particularly annoying local journalist who had infuriated much of the Los Angeles community. Nah, I thought, it would be inappropriate to use the FBI for the purpose of revenge.

A Los Angeles Police Department friend offered the only encouragement, “It is an honor to be invited. Don’t worry. I’ll tell them you’re not a subversive and not to arrest you until after our tennis match next week.” She laughed.

I felt the real purpose behind the FBI’s invitation had to do with their misguided aim to infiltrate the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which cannot be infiltrated because it is an ideology rather than an organization. There are no meetings, mailing lists or membership cards. Anybody can claim to be a member of the ALF when rescuing animals, destroying “tools of torture” (such as research equipment) or financially depleting a corporation that abuses animals; as long as he or she does not injure a human or nonhuman in the process.

The FBI has designated the ALF as America’s number one domestic terrorist threat, in spite of the fact that those acting on its behalf have never physically harmed anyone. The same cannot be said of unions, who have reportedly instigated 2,193 acts of violence in the last ten years—including near fatal injuries--and anti-abortion activists who have made 13,256 attacks in the past three decades against doctors and clinics, including murders, kidnappings and bombings. By comparison, ALF-attributed actions are quite rare.

In 2003, hate crimes totaled approximately 7,400 and recognized violations of environmental laws by corporations hit 450. Senator Barak Obama says he is baffled as to why the ALF is the foremost target, since the FBI itself has stated that ALF-attributed crimes are on the decline.

In Congressional Quarterly, Justin Rood argues that the US government is silencing free speech from the political left while ignoring those on the radical right, and the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that the government is attempting to quell controversial ideas by targeting mainstream animal and environmental groups, peace activists and others who participate in lawful protest when in fact they “should be investigating real terrorists.”

As an animal advocate for the past 25 years, I have only heard of two illegal animal-related actions, and both were committed by carnivores indifferent to the animal movement. One contemplated attributing his lawless act to the ALF, and the other might have done so under the right circumstances.

The first “villain” was an elderly attorney, who broke into his own home to rescue his two, pet pigeons after it had had been padlocked by health department officials. The man had been told that he would be thrown into jail without the possibility of bail if he were to set foot on the property. His equally villainous university professor friend manned the getaway car. Neither were vegetarians. Neither was young or agile. And prior to this, neither had committed what the FBI might call a “terrorist act.” They cut off the oversized padlock and rescued two, healthy pigeons on an autumn night in 2005. They have escaped arrest to this day, but are not on the run.

The second “terrorist” was, in fact, a remorseful vivisectionist who would sneak animals off the premises before slaughter and place them in loving homes. If his superior had questioned the disappearance of “specimens,” the researcher, in order to retain his job, could have simply pointed his finger at the ALF.

Decision day arrived, and my criminal attorney gave me the flickering yellow light, warning me that my visit to the Academy would prompt the FBI to open a file on me.

“Well, I plan to open a file on them, too,” I assured him. “But, I promise not to put any falsehoods in my file if they don’t put any falsehoods in theirs.”

“Go if you want. It’s legit, but take my number in case.”

My plan was to serve as an ambassador for the animal rights movement and to convey through my lecture the truth about how animals suffer under human oppression, as well as to present philosophical arguments as to why animals are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration. I wanted my audience to understand that anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat dangerous groups who fly planes into buildings, rather than renegade gerbil lovers. It would not be realistic to suggest that animal-related “crimes” be ignored, but I argued they be deprioritized in an age when chemical, biological and nuclear warfare are possible.

An ominous feeling tented the empty road and thick woods in Quantico, and the sound of guns slammed through the air. I met Special Agent Andy, a fine host for the FBI, at the first security checkpoint, and he immediately drove me past a sign, which read, “Danger. Field Firing in Process.” Was this disclaimer the result of an accident? Perhaps a speaker had been shot in her compact rental car. I scanned for stray bullets.

Andy took me on a brief tour of the grounds, pointing out a pretend town called Hogan’s Alley with fake storefronts, including a bank in which actors are hired at $12.00 per hour to play “robber,” “hostage” or “drug dealer” with FBI trainees.

I laughed, “Do the actors ever win?” Andy gave me a stern look, “We take that very seriously. It is not good to get shot even in playtime.”

Andy had a penchant—as did all the agents I met—for comparing their work with crime shows and movies. At one point he mentioned, “We (the FBI) are more like Barney Miller than James Bond. More paperwork than adventure.” In many ways, the afternoon was a crash course in TV trivia.

The presentation room was a small lecture hall with a podium, microphone and display screen for the speaker, and fixed seats on ascending levels for attendees. I was told that two FBI psychologists would sit in on my lecture. Although the psychologists were charming, I felt their aim was to scrutinize me, to learn how to squash the animal rights movement. I felt the others were there to learn.

My presentation began with undercover video footage inside a vivisection lab. It showed a man in a white coat pounding on a Beagle puppy and forcing tubes down several dogs’ throats; the animals were clearly in distress. I surmised cleaning liquids or pesticides would be poured down the tubes since they were routinely tested at this lab. In another clip, monkeys screamed while their penises were electrocuted by scientists.

Andy shouted from the back of the room, “The FBI will prosecute this sort of cruelty if videos like this are brought to our attention.”

I pointed out that obtaining undercover video is illegal in itself, even more so with the advent of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which states that a person can be prosecuted if he or she causes over $10,000 worth of economic damage to a corporation that uses animals. Showing undercover video could cause investors to sell their stocks, decimating profits. Those who unveil the video could face time in prison and fines.

In addition, I told the crowd that it was unlikely the barbarous treatment of dogs and monkeys in the footage was against the law. And even if it was, prosecution tends to result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Because animals are property, and the law generally finds it acceptable to use and kill animals for human gain, imposing prison terms and steep fines on large corporations—who have even larger lawyers--is rare.

During my lecture, I was able to get several law enforcement executives to admit openly that they would break the law, if necessary, to rescue an animal in distress, although they did not specifically agree to break into a research lab or factory farm. This was quite an accomplishment because prior to the presentation, Andy had privately told me that any FBI agent who did not or could not (for ethical reasons) uphold all US laws would be fired. My audience was mostly non-FBI so they surely kept their jobs.

Andy was keen on discussing “solutions” for bridging the gap between “them and us,” although he hinted that the Bureau’s favored tactic was to develop a network of spies within the animal movement who would report illegal actions. I told Andy this strategy was sure to fail because I had been a loyal animal rights person for 25 years, and had only heard about two so-called criminals: the aforementioned renegade researcher and pigeon man, neither connected to the movement.

I was pleased with Andy’s desire to better the relationship between law enforcement and animal rights activists and offered the following suggestions. First, I said that law enforcement could advise the President and Congress to support legislation that improves the situation for nonhumans and to enforce existing anti-cruelty laws. The FBI could also place “weeding out animal cruelty” higher on its “to do” list.

Secondly, I suggested that the FBI work on bettering its image and investigate real terrorists rather than plunging into what is perceived as a modern-day Inquisition. It was both curious and alarming that every person who found out about my speaking engagement “freaked out.” This mistrust no doubt largely stemmed from the problematic history of the FBI; which is detailed in Richard Gid Powers’ book, Broken: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of the FBI. Powers argues that the Bureau hones in on any issue that “represent(s) the fears and hatred of the masses or classes,” rather than investigating those crimes that most offend the law or pose the gravest danger, an allegation that coincides with what animal and environmental supporters call today’s “Green Scare.”

Beginning with the FBI’s inception in the early 1900’s, Powers’ book moves through the FBI’s “witch hunts” against “whomever might be the public enemy of the day.” There was the “White Slavery Scare,” which was embarked upon due to a racist fear by Whites about the increasing power of Blacks, the “Adultery Scare,” and the notorious “Red Scare,” among others.

Today, a substantial number of people feel the Patriot Act is used for political reasons, and the ACLU charges that the FBI is spying on and examining the records of thousands of law-abiding US citizens. Andy says these allegations are untrue and that the Bureau supports free speech and lawful protest. He adds that simply tapping a phone takes excessive manpower; therefore, would only be reserved for someone who is a substantial threat.

My third suggestion was that law enforcement officers make good “situation ethics” decisions. Even though Andy insisted laws are not malleable, I know there is always the exercise of discretion and could tell lecture attendees agreed by their nodding heads. I pointed out situations in which police officers have leeway to make decisions that directly affect the life or safety of animals.

For example, during the Katrina disaster, some officers allowed people to evacuate with their animals; others did not. At a burning apartment building in Tennessee in 2003, police and firefighters refused to allow a man to rescue his trapped dog who was clawing at the glass of a sliding door. The man eventually ignored law enforcement’s orders and rescued his dog. He was handcuffed and charged with misdemeanors, outraging the public and arguably tarnishing the reputation of local law enforcement. If the man’s two-year-old daughter had been clawing at the glass, would law enforcement have told him to “stand back and let the child die?”

As a finale to my lecture, I questioned why the only difference between a criminal and a terrorist--according to the US Code of Federal Regulations as listed on the FBI website--relates to the latter’s desire to further “political or social objectives.” The word “terrorist” evokes the image of an evil person while the word “criminal” has a less pejorative connotation, even when the offenses are the same.

One can only assume that “furthering political or social objectives” frightens those in power, who crave to maintain the status quo. Perhaps those who control society—such as corporations, government entities and media conglomerates--fear the ideology of an animal liberationist could catch hold and topple them from their golden thrones, reducing their animal product profits and a overturning a lifestyle which requires nonhumans be seen as means to a human end. Is this the true reason behind branding the ALF as “terrorists?”

After the lecture, Andy asked me, “Could you come back and speak again?”

“I doubt it. Unfortunately, I don’t fare well on long plane rides.”

He added, “Well, maybe you could give me the name of someone who could.”

I grinned and replied, “I knew you’d ask me to name names. I have no choice but to report this in my secret file.”

Haste, Waste and Mammoth Misconceptions

2006-04-19T18:39:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-2 to build a costly ($40 - $60 million) elephant enclosure at the LA zoo. Only Councilmembers Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl voted with activists who wanted the exhibit closed and the three elephants freed...
_____________________

How logical it would have been to save both the elephants and taxpayer dollars by voting against the proposed 3.5-acre elephant exhibit and sending our imprisoned pachyderms to paradise in a spacious sanctuary in Northern California. But City Councils do not always make logical decisions as we painfully discovered on Wednesday morning.

The second most rational approach would have been to postpone the decision for a few weeks until results had been tallied on Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s pending bill which would require California elephant exhibits to have more acreage than the LA plan provides.

Postponement would also have given Neighborhood Councils an opportunity to poll their stakeholders and make a formal recommendation to the city. Many councils have the elephant issue agendized for their May meetings due to a presentation about the topic at the LANC Congress earlier this month.

Unfortunately, haste, waste and misconceptions about the needs of massive animals have prevailed while the voiceless pachyderms and obviously equally voiceless taxpayers have been shoved aside.
__________________
Update on the elephant situation:

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's elephant bill is slated for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 25, 2006. One wonders whether the LA City Council is trying to slip something over on their constituents by sneaking it onto a supplemental agenda at the last minute.

The language of the agenda is biased and inaccurate and serves merely to reinforce their own action of wasting $40 million plus in taxpayer dollars in order to perpetuate cruelty to elephants.

The Council agenda states that the recommendation is to support Levine’s legislation AS LONG IT IS AMENDED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION WHICH IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Based on scientific research?

AZA standards are that elephants need no more than 1800 square feet outdoors and 400 square feet indoors.

This leaves barely enough room for an elephant to turn around. Why all this discussion about 3.5 acres if they are supporting the pathetic standards of AZA, which is arguably nothing more than a rubber stamp organization.

According to Catherine Doyle, founder of Los Angeles Alliance for Elephants, says, “It is ridiculous to promote AZA space standards. AZA space standards for elephants establish an area less than half of the area legally required by the city of LA for horses.The List No. 1 of Uses Permitted in Various Zones in the City of Los Angeles, 2003 states: "Equine Keeping 17,500 square foot minimum lot area; 4,000 square feet of lot area per animal." (And where is the science to back this up?)AZA allows a minimum 1800 sq ft outdoors for elephants, with 900 sq ft for each additional animal. 1800 sq ft is the size of a 3-car garage. Indoor requirement is 400 square feet per, which is a 20x20 space for an animal that ranges from 8,000 to 13,000 pounds. It is better (for the City Council) not to take a position on what is essentially a poorly thought out resolution. I feel support of that resolution would be an embarrassment to the city and a solid step backwards in the care of elephants ”

You can find out about the supplemental City Council Agenda for Tuesday at the City Council website…

Please let the Councilmembers know how you feel.

Trump in Tinseltown Handpicking the Apprentice-Bound

2006-03-14T14:32:00.000-08:00

It helps to be thin, young and hot looking. Middle-aged, plump and plain are not on the top ten list of attributes The Apprentice casting directors seek in a contestant. Brainpower comes into play, but only after you pass the physical appearance test. After all, this is TV, folks.

On March 9, 2006 at 4:00 am, a blonde Trump Corporation wannabe named Farrah Evagues stole through the dark with her blanket, mittens and foldable lounge chair, staking out a first-in-line position at the Globe Theatre inside Los Angeles’ Universal Studios.

Farrah was not the only rebel who pooh-poohed the rules on the NBC website that stated: “Arrive no earlier than 6:00 am.” Twenty other daredevils braved the biting, 45-degree air with Farrah until two or three hours later when the bulk of applicants arrived. All hoped to be chosen as contestants for The Apprentice and to meet Donald Trump in person.

Los Angeles provided the backdrop for the first casting call; the show would be recruiting candidates in 16 other cities, including Chicago, New York, Honolulu and Phoenix.

I arrived at 6:45 with my resume, prepared to undertake two roles: as an applicant and undercover reporter. Why shiver when one can both shiver and also ask questions?

I weaved through the long line of freezing people, inquiring about jobs, qualifications and reasons for wanting to work for “The Donald.” Few applicants wore winter coats, yet many were cloaked with paranoia.

My questioning began: “What do you do for a living?” Most people were tight-lipped.

“I’m not going to tell you. I might get disqualified,” said one.
Another replied, “I have my answer, but I’m not going to tell you what it is.”

A woman, whom I later learned was the former Miss Yugoslavia, gave me an impolite, cold stare. No words. Maybe she feared I’d steal her identity and blurt out, “Great idea. I’ll be the former Miss Yugoslavia, too.”

Perhaps The Apprentice hopefuls thought I had the power to vote them off the island. They were clearly “island” experts. I overheard conversations about Survivor, Deal or No Deal, America’s Top Model, and other reality shows.

The only seemingly honest answers I got were:
“I’m a demolition derby manager,”
“I’m a professional reality show contestant. I’ve tried out for The Apprentice three times.”
“I’m a teacher.”

In fact, three applicants told me they were teachers, including 58-year old Lancaster resident Bill Newyear who appeared to be the oldest in line. He told me how his generation comprises 25% of the population.

“It makes good TV to have an older Everyman,” Bill said. “If I get selected, it would show Trump’s commitment to people like me, that we are not ready to go out to pasture yet.”

My second question: “Why do you want to be the Apprentice?”

Again, most applicants were not forthcoming, but two answered, “I love golf” and “I need formal grooming to make me into the perfect candidate for the workplace.”

As an employment recruiter, Orange County resident Diana London didn’t care if she was chosen. She was there to pick up clients from what she deemed an educated pool of candidates and to sneak a manila envelope to Trump, which revealed details about an invention she hoped would prove profitable for them both.

At 8:00 am, an Apprentice staff member began affixing plastic identification bracelets to the applicants’ wrists. I acted bent out of shape.

“Bracelets without diamonds? I certainly expected more from Mr. Trump.” The staff member was not amused.

Then a Universal Studios employee announced: “Anyone who moves outside the rope can be arrested for trespassing. We can’t have people visiting a theme park without paying for a ticket.”

“Yeah,” I leaned towards her. “We wouldn’t want hundreds of people in business suits making a mad dash for the ‘Revenge of the Mummy’ ride.”

I was finally permitted to enter the audition room and noticed Jay Leno taping a “Jaywalking” segment for The Tonight Show. Inside Edition, TV Guide and other members of the press were positioning their cameras and microphones.

Two representatives from the casting company interviewed the eight applicants at each table; there were five tables in the room. We were asked our age. The casting reps seemed displeased with my answer: “45,” yet thrilled with the answer given by the 24-year-old to my left.

We were asked to debate whether a company should have a policy against dating in the workplace, then whether bosses should dictate the smoking habits of employees outside of business hours.

No one looked at my resume. All attention was on the youngsters at the table. I felt like I had wandered into a casting call for an ingénue. I figured the Everyman curtain had fallen on the 58-year-old teacher from Lancaster and the other “over-40’s” in the room.

My group interview ended. I left the table to find 32-year-old Australian business analyst Gavin Hadwen who claimed he too was trampled by the Trump cattle call.

He said, “It seemed to me that if you were over 30, you had less of a shot.”

I told him, “There have been a number of Apprentice contestants in their thirties. But forties is a different story altogether.”

Trump randomly wandered from table to table, observing interviews. Periodically he would whisper to a casting rep, who then discreetly initialed a particular applicant’s paperwork. This surely meant the individual had advanced past the first hurdle and would be asked to return for the second round.

The show’s casting producer Scott Salyers says his primary job is to find someone who can run Trump’s business. On the other hand, the show survives from ratings, which arguably increase when the young and beautiful are cast. If viewers want to see an older Everyman, they could demand change with the click of the remote control.

The morning was successful for some. Diana handed Trump her “invention” envelope, and the former Miss Yugoslavia received the all-important tiny initial on her application. Maybe we will see her next season.

As I prepared to leave, I overheard Trump say, “I am looking for smart people. I am always looking for smart people.“ He mentioned two applicants he had met that day with more than one academic degree.

It was my chance to reveal something about my severely neglected resume. I held my head high, marched over to the billionaire and stated, “Mr. Trump, I have five degrees.”

Without missing a beat, he countered, “You’re over-qualified”--a perplexing statement considering last season’s winner also had five degrees.

I like Trump because he is down-to-earth with a keen business sense and a sane perspective of the world, but I have one question for him:

Am I really over-qualified? Or is it that I’m 45?

Arm Wrestling with Darwin

2006-01-27T14:51:00.000-08:00

Unless your head has been super-glued inside a science book, you have observed the furious debate between proponents of intelligent design (ID) and supporters of evolution; a debate that has bounced from courtrooms into opinion pages around the country. Pointing to the complexity of life on earth, IDers posit the existence of an intelligent designer and reject the notion that all can be explained by evolutionary theory.

The issue has become a political tractor with conservatives and liberals attempting to bulldoze their opponents. Conservatives hope to acquire the seal of authenticity for their theory of ID, an accolade that only “fact-based” and “respectable” science can provide; while the liberals want to protect their turf from what they see as a religious crusade into the “objective” halls of learning.

The controversy has emerged in Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri and South Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania where a judge recently ruled that reading a single sentence about intelligent design in biology class would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In California, the El Tejon Unified School District permanently cancelled a philosophy class about intelligent design after Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit.

Religion was once the supreme authority on all matters, but when the Enlightenment’s onslaught of secular ideas swept over the European continent, it carried away the minds—and sometimes the hearts—of many who had been devout.

Seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza rebelled against traditional Judaism and Christianity, replacing them to a great extent with the rational and scientifically based metaphysic of determinism. This metaphysic argues in favor of a mechanistic, causal universe and is bolstered by scientific findings, including later Darwinian theory.

In keeping with the prior rebellion against religion, today there is arguably a rebellion against the new leader called “science.” Kings risk being toppled from their thrones, and ID has emerged as a weapon to be used against this final arbiter of “truth.”

Why are IDers making their move now? First, it could be said that science has ventured into “disquieting” areas of study, such as cloning, transgenetic engineering, cross-species transplants and stem cell research. There may be an urge to rein it in with philosophical or theological “wisdom.” As Albert Einstein, a pantheist and disciple of Spinoza, said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Teaching is never value-free, and an omission can convey a powerful message. When students fail to discuss the ethics of scientific actions and outcomes, they often end up like my former, high school classmates: giggling and hurling dissection specimens across the room, a behavior that conveys lack of respect for the animals who died and inability to comprehend that dissection is considered by many to be ethically impermissible in the first place.

Secondly, science has faltered recently, leaving it vulnerable to attack by those who hope to depose it. Scientific fraud has leapfrogged to the public’s attention with confessions by Korean researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who admitted fabricating cloning studies for the past two years. Esteemed scientific journals published his concocted data, and his peers did not question his work. One journal editor recently stated that scientific error and dupery occur from time to time, even at leading American universities, a statement that taints the image of science as trusted authority.

Thirdly, IDers may feel that any disagreement among prominent scientists opens the hatch to alternative theories. The discovery of “spooky” quantum mechanics occurred in conjunction with a pervasive disillusionment with science and its fundamental tenet: causality. While some quantum physicists, such as Einstein, support a deterministic hidden variable theory, others, such as Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, defend a framework based on the uncertainty principle. If it is acceptable to teach opposing theories in quantum mechanics, then why not let ID arm wrestle with Darwin?

Because words such as “spookiness,” “magic” and “trickery” are associated with the quantum world, one could argue that mystical, veiled or opaque theories, such as ID, befit the scientific realm. If quantum strangeness can be taught, why must intelligent design be expelled?

Lastly, postmodernism--which rejects any form of absolute truth, even in science--has permeated modern society, and conservative IDers are embracing it. This is ironic because the “right” has traditionally embraced the objective and absolute while the “left” has endorsed the subjective and contextual.

In describing postmodernism, Richard Rorty says, “truth is made rather than found,” and Jean-Francois Lyotard emphasizes the importance of avoiding totalizing grand narratives and maintaining an infinite number of perspectives. Darwinian theory is nothing if not a totalizing grand narrative.

Should ID be allowed to “act up” in science class? Most people might say yes. According to a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll on evolution, 84 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form or helped guide their development, while a mere 12 percent say God had no part in the process.

The bouncers in the “12 percent club” guard the door from party crashers. They look at “fake” ID, saying it is creationism incognito and that it lacks “real science” credentials. They announce to the crowd, “If you think it qualifies, you’ve had one too many drinks.”

They are correct in that intelligent design fails Karl Popper’s falsifiability test; it cannot be proved wrong. ID is philosophy, not science. But does this mean it should be denied entry?

I am convinced by the evidence of natural selection and treasure Darwin’s theory because it promotes an interconnectedness of all living things, but I hold that the intense battle to keep ID out of the classroom is misguided. The shrill, political feud between conservatives and liberals has spiraled away from protecting students and the Constitution into a rendition of Hannity and Colmes.

Do we lack confidence in our children to evaluate, to separate evidence from fiction, to interpret for themselves? Sweeping ID under the rug makes for a huge lump that curious teenagers will investigate.

What is the resistance to cross-disciplinary study or “big picture” teaching in which related fields, such as history, philosophy and biology, are integrated? Math partners with chemistry; philosophy and ethics could collaborate with all branches of science. Compartmentalized study may lead to a lack of synthesis, thus an absence of learning in general.

Why is postmodernism a no-no in science, but a welcome visitor in other disciplines? No area of study should lose the doubt and humility that a postmodern filter provides. Theories from the past have been toppled, and some that are accepted today will be mocked tomorrow.

Fighting may be inappropriate in school, but arm wrestling, well, isn’t that a fundamental freedom? Now let’s roll up our sleeves and let the theorizing begin.

Good News and Bad News on the Animal Front

2005-12-14T15:25:00.000-08:00

The Good News: Stuckey out of luck?

According to the Daily Breeze, Mayor Villaraigosa has fulfilled his campaign promise to fire Mr. Guerdon Stuckey, the General Manager of Animal Services. Although the Mayor's office has not confirmed the report, the animal community is cautiously optimistic.

Negative press about this issue has stalked the Mayor for the past two months. A majority of L.A. animal advocates have come to the conclusion that Mr. Stuckey is unable to move the city in the direction of "no kill."

Sixteen Directors of Animal Welfare (DAWs)--who were appointed through the Neighborhood Council system--sent a joint letter to the Mayor last week requesting his removal.

If the Daily Breeze article is accurate, the Mayor should be thanked. The Mayor's next step is to hire a competent and caring General Manager for Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS).
______________

The Bad News: CAO Report is huge (or elephantine!) disappointment.

Many in the animal community, including the Directors of Animal Welfare, want to see the local elephant exhibit closed and the three L.A. zoo elephants--Ruby, Gita and Billy—moved to a sanctuary. A 75-page CAO report came back stating that the taxpayers should fund a $33 million three-acre L.A. exhibit. Not only would this be disastrous for the elephants (who need at least 100 acres), but it would be burdensome for our city which is currently $268 million in debt. Some City Councilmembers have expressed their desire to see the elephants sent to a sanctuary. It is hoped that Mayor Villaraigosa will do the right thing for these beautiful and deserving creatures who are counting on him.

Caution: You're about to enter an Affordable Housing Zone

2005-12-08T22:38:00.000-08:00

Inclusionary zoning ordinances and density bonuses—also known as "below market rate" (BMR) housing programs—can negatively impact the community. These affordable housing programs reward developers who earmark a percentage of new homes or condos for those in the low and moderate income brackets by letting them increase density, build taller structures and curtail open space and parking requirements. This can lead to over-crowding and infrastructure headaches for residents in the area.

But "below market rate" (BMR) housing programs are arguably problematic for other reasons. They are inherently unfair, hurt both market-rate and BMR property owners, rely upon an unfounded evaluation of the home ownership situation, and erroneously see the solution to the housing "crisis" as the weaving of a paternalistic safety net across America.

Nets are vital for hairy high-wire acts, but unnecessary—even deleterious--for the recipients of "below market rate" housing programs, who can earn as much as $126,000 per year in parts of Northern California. A New York Times article tells of Marin County woman who "likes nice things: fashionable clothes, dinner out with her husband, a private school for her daughter (and has a household income of)... $111,000," but is unable to buy a home without a 30% "inclusionary zoning discount" in her neighborhood of choice, where properties sell for as much as $1.8 million a piece.

This story and the thousands like it amount to an emotional assault on the millions of homeowners who had to make sacrifices (and still do)—forgoing private school tuition, vacations, restaurant dinners and the ability to live in their preferred neighborhood—in order to get into a condo or home. To afford the payments, they may rent out a guest house or share the premises with a "buying partner," such as a relative or friend. In the more expensive real estate markets, they may allocate as much as 50% of their incomes for mortgage payments and acquire a "stated income," "no ratio," or "no doc" loan in order to get bank approval in the first place. Many purchase with little to no down payment because they have no real savings. To know that Uncle Builder and Uncle Sam are handing money to others, especially those with higher incomes, is nothing short of insulting.

"Below market rate" housing programs can assist those who earn up to 120% of the median-income for the area. In Atherton, California—the zip code with the nation's highest median income—this would translate into home-buying subsidies for those who make $240,000 per year. In addition, BMR programs are prone to abuse by investors who hope to shimmy down a loophole.

"Below market rate" housing programs amount to more than an emotional assault: they arguably attack the pocketbooks of everyone. According to the Reason Foundation, a nonprofit that has extensively studied affordable housing issues, BMR programs "increase(s) the cost of market-rate homes in a typical city by $33,000-$66,000 per unit" because developers raise the prices of regularly priced properties to compensate for their losses on the low cost ones. This means that average home-buying Americans may be subsidizing their so-called needy, but oftentimes wealthier, BMR neighbors.

It seems these "needy" BMR neighbors--who initially bubble like lottery winners—are not so lucky after all because affordable housing programs, almost without exception, impose heavy resale restrictions on their new owners. BMR owners cannot obtain much, if any, equity from their new purchases for a period of time—usually between 15-60 years, depending upon the rules of the locality and program. In parts of Vermont, price controls stay in place for 99 years.

BMR owners have less incentive to upgrade their properties because it is questionable—at least in some parts of the country—whether they will be able to recoup fix-up costs. They cannot access their equity for emergencies or better investments. If they get a raise, the higher income may disqualify them from retaining the property. They cannot sublet or move out without becoming ineligible for the program, and they cannot sell to a relative or friend because the city or county gets first right of refusal at the reduced sales price. If the city or county declines, the property goes to the next BMR buyer on the waiting list.

Unless BMR buyers can weather the lengthy resale restriction periods in their "property prisons," they will have to initiate the buying process again only to find themselves in a less favorable position since home prices tend to increase over time. BMR buyers may realize they have erred by unnecessarily delaying the opportunity to accumulate equity like market-rate owners. As a Los Angeles city planner says, "These programs are not for those who want to build wealth."

"Not for those who want to build wealth" are words that express a vote of "no confidence" in the BMRers' ability to stand on their own two feet. Providing crutches for those without broken bones—since most BMRers could be market rate buyers—leads to chronic impairment because when healthy parts are not used, they become weak.

BMR programs effectively lock the door to real homeownership after giving the "needy" a deceptive weekend playing house. It is like the parent who sneaks an Easter egg into a child's basket and smiles, "look what you have," only to snatch it back and give it to another child.

BMR programs will no doubt become more popular as government continues to obsess over affordability statistics rather than consult with real life experts—real estate agents and lenders—who get low and moderate income clients into properties "all day long" in some of the most expensive real estate markets in the country.

When USA Today reports that "the minimum household income needed for a median-priced home at $495,000 (is) $115,910," it is incorrectly assumed that someone with a $55,000 income cannot buy the property.

Government must shed myths that housing is unaffordable and scarce. Potential buyers must be empowered with avenues for property investment, rather than coddled and saddled with wealth-deflating options.

The threats against current homeowners--whether related to high density or the subsidization of BMR buyers—must end. Government should trust in supply and demand and use available resources to clean up lower density, crime-invested neighborhoods where the market would naturally produce a less expensive product.

A BMR program is an RBM (really bad mistake), so use caution when you enter an affordable housing zone.

Assault on the American Homeowner

2005-12-08T22:32:00.000-08:00

Sixty-nine percent of Americans are homeowners, and they are under siege. A number of "unfriendly" policies, proposals and court decisions within the past year have produced an atmosphere which is arguably antithetical to the American dream of carving out a slice of the apple pie and plopping a single family residence on it.

The assault weapons have catchy titles, such as inclusionary zoning, smart growth, density bonus incentives, eminent domain and mortgage interest tax reform. It could be said that corporations and developers attack from one side while politicians and government officials, acting in the interest of the less well-off, attack from the other.

In the tug-of-war between the "have a lots" and the "have a littles," the flag shifts back and forth in an effort to balance interests, and those in the middle are swept along for the ride.

This argument is more than a refrain of "the gap between the rich and the poor" tune as sung in Kevin Phillips' Wealth and Democracy, Lester Thurow's Fortune Favors the Bold or Lawrence Mishel's The State of Working America. The "middle" encompasses more than the middle-class. Most homeowners are at risk.

"Eminent domain" refers to the government's right--with fair compensation--to seize private property for public use, such as when residences could be bulldozed to make room for much-needed freeway. But in this "property assault era," the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the word "public" can be synonymous with the word "private." Do you remember what the definition of "is" is?

Any private property that can produce greater tax revenues in the hands of a more enterprising private property owner, such as a corporation that plans to build a shopping mall or high rise, could be plucked away for so-called public benefit. Attorney Dana Berliner said of the ruling, "This is a dark day for American homeowners."

An "attempted assault" emerged recently from President Bush's tax-reform panel, which proposed replacing the mortgage interest deduction with a meager tax credit equal to 15 percent of the homeowner's mortgage interest. According to Al Mansell of the National Association of Realtors, this could translate into a 15% decline in home prices in some parts of the country; and therefore, a significant loss of equity for homeowners. Fortunately, Congress is not expected to countenance the recommendation.

Because measures related to eminent domain and mortgage interest tax deductions are criticized by a vocal majority, they are unlikely to become permanent policy. However, inclusionary zoning, smart growth and density bonus incentives are another matter altogether.

"Smart growth" (SG) is supposed to be smart, but it can be short-sighted. SG advocates generally promote taller structures near mass transit lines, greater use of the existing infrastructure, conversion of obsolete and distressed commercial and industrial buildings into mixed-use properties and preservation of the countryside from urban sprawl. While these goals are noble and often sound, the impact of high density building upon existing residents must be factored into the equation.

"Smart growth" could be likened to a finely constructed ship. Without fuel, a place to dock and an unobstructed sailing path, the boat is useless. "Smart growth" proponents must consider the capabilities of the existing infrastructure to fuel new growth; they are often not upgraded to handle additional customers. They must factor in the parking and traffic situation--especially along mass transit lines which may already be congested—and the current density figures for the target area. Los Angeles, for example, is the densest city in the country with just over 7000 people per square mile. The plan which means smooth sailing in Oklahoma City may stall in L.A.

Directives or incentives aimed at providing affordable housing for low or moderate income residents are touched upon in most "smart growth" plans, but they are integral to "below market rate" (BMR) housing programs, such as inclusionary zoning and density bonuses. BMR initiatives ignore market forces--such as the law of supply and demand and the natural "trading up" homeownership process--by requiring or incentivizing builders to set aside a portion of their sale or rental units at below market rates for those deemed unable to afford current prices.

In addition to density increases, government may permit BMR developers to erect taller structures, skirt parking and open space requirements and dot single family neighborhoods with townhouses. Homeowners—from the "struggling" to the affluent--may, in turn, feel assaulted by the resulting traffic congestion, parking problems, loss of backyard privacy and inferior quality of life on previously serene streets. It could be likened to a cramped elevator; as passengers flood through the doors, claustrophobia increases as well as a fear that the community will exceed its capacity and plummet to its figurative death.

BMR programs exist in at least 134 cities, towns and counties in America, and in the following states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin.

We cannot stop growth, but we must be intelligent about it. Above all, we must not take homeowner assault with a grain of salt.

L.A.'s Pet Project: By the Numbers

2005-11-14T10:04:00.000-08:00

Warning: Do not read this post unless you are seeking statistical information about animal deaths at Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) shelters. I have tried to write this clearly, but numbers can be confusing and onerous.

In a nutshell: LAAS General Manager Mr. Guerdon Stuckey routinely states that there has been a decrease in animal shelter deaths within the past year; however, the facts seem to point to an increase.

LAAS admits to killing 24,932 animals this year and 29,560 last year. Yet, according to its own records, 9251 animals (that were inputted into the system) are unaccounted for this year, as were 4218 animals last year. It could be assumed that they were euthanized, but not added to the final tally. If this is the case, the number of animals killed this past year would total 34,183, while the number in the previous year would total 33,778, meaning that animal deaths are on the rise, and Los Angeles is moving away from becoming a no-kill city.

__________________

Members of the Animal Community complain that they have been unable to obtain statistical information regarding the number of animals killed at L.A.'s public shelters.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's campaign website states that "at least 44,000 animals a year are killed in our shelters while the department perpetuates a reputation for conflict and confrontation with the animal community." (www.Antonio2005.com)

The protest group Animal Defense League (ADL-LA) estimates the deaths to be around 50,000 per year.

Minutes from L.A. Animal Commission meetings reveal that animals are not always logged into the system, and volunteers tell "off the record" tales about how computers are sometimes manipulated to make the department look favorable.

I have requested the official LAAS statistics many times throughout the past year from the following persons or departments: General Manager (GM) Guerdon Stuckey (three times), former Assistant GM Regina Adams (three times), the Mayor's office (one time), LAAS shelters (two times), and an LAAS associate (one time); but I never received anything until now, in spite of the fact that it is declared "public information." The statistics that I now possess did not come from the city but from a source outside of the city who was obviously more persuasive and resourceful than me.

The official 25-page report has internal inconsistencies. On page 23, the record shows that in the fiscal year ending in June 2005, 24,932 animals were killed; and in the previous fiscal year, 29,560 animals were killed.

However, on page 3 of the same report, it states that 57,930 animals were brought into the shelter during the past fiscal year, and of this number, 18,902 were adopted while 4,845 were redeemed. By adding 18,902 and 4,845, one gets a total of 23,747. If one subtracts 23,747 from the number of animals brought into the shelters, one gets a total of 34,183 animals (killed and/or missing on page 3). This is a different number from the 24,932 animals that the department states they killed (on page 23). It seems that 9251 animals have vanished. Were they killed but not added to the final tally? Although released wildlife might account for some of these animals, wildlife experts who work with the shelters say the number of released wildlife would be trifling. Page 23 of the report substantiates this claim; it states a small number of wildlife end up at LAAS. One can assume that LAAS killed 34,183 animals this past year.

A similar discrepancy can be found in the previous year: 57,437 animals were taken into the shelters, while 18,752 were adopted and 4,907 were redeemed. When one adds 18,752 and 4,907, one gets 23,659. By subtracting this from 57,437, one arrives at 33,778 (killed and/or missing on page 3) rather than 29,560 (on page 23). This points to a discrepancy of 4218 animals. Where are the 4218 missing animals from last year? One can assume that LAAS killed 33,778 animals during the previous fiscal year.

Do the discrepancies in the report point to incompetence or a willful attempt to alter numbers? And why are there a greater number of missing animals during the most recent fiscal year? Does this indicate the department is "getting worse"?

_____________________

Other questions about the report...

The ordinance passed in 2000 by the L.A. City Council requires a higher license fee for those who do not wish to spay-neuter their dogs. Yet the official LAAS statistics do not track the success or failure of this ordinance. It would be wise to delete ineffective categories that exist in this report--such as "livery stable" and "horse or mule market" which are followed by zeroes since they have no relevance to Los Angeles--and to replace them with a category that could monitor the success of the spay-neuter ordinance.

_________________________

The statistics show that 375 unweaned puppies and 5192 unweaned kittens were killed this past fiscal year. This is surprising since the LAAS shelters have been known to auction puppies for as much as $1000 each. The auction money goes to L.A.'s general fund; it is not used to help the animals. Volunteers/foster parents should prepare these babies for adoption, thus potentially eliminating the need for this category, at least with respect to dogs.

__________________________

There is data corresponding to the number of dogs that were killed by LAAS between 7/1/04 and 6/30/05. It is interesting to note the breed categories LAAS utilizes and to confirm -- contrary to what the public may believe -- that small dogs are euthanized. This shows the importance of adopting all breeds from the shelters.

American Staff – 766
Boxer – 78
Chihuahua – 232
Chinese Sharpei – 98
Chow Chow – 739
Cocker Spaniel – 100
Dalmatian – 115
German Shepherd – 584
Jindo – 140
Labrador Retriever – 581
Pit Bull – 281
Rottweiler – 807
Shepherd – 1370
Staffordshire – 2234
Terrier – 184
Others - 944
_________________

According to a periodic review of the website www.petharbor.com -- which tallies the number of animals in the L.A. shelter system -- the total number of animals housed on any particular day (within the six city shelters) seems to fluctuate between 1200 and 1310 animals.

When LAAS is at 1200, it seems reasonable to assume that it is not filling its cages to capacity. Why would it euthanize animals when there is space to house them? This suggests that some shelter managers and workers may adhere to a "killing routine" rather than evaluate the "animal situation" on a daily basis in order to spare as many lives as possible. Undercover shelter video footage corroborates the unnecessary killing: in this secret video, cages are shown storing paper products rather than giving hope to homeless dogs and cats.
______________________

If you have any additional information or comments about the statistics or practices of Los Angeles Animal Services, I hope you will post them on this blog.

Mayor Villaraigosa and the Truth about Cats and Dogs

2005-11-02T01:30:00.000-08:00

The earth is starting to tremble in the Los Angeles animal community because Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has refused to honor his January 2005 campaign promise to fire the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services Guerdon Stuckey, and this broken promise has drawn attention to a potential scandal involving a loss of $1.1 million to the city over the next three years. Even fiscally responsible Angelenos who don't care about cats and dogs can be officially outraged.

Animal advocates might have let the mayor out of the doghouse on his pledge if Stuckey had reformed the department, fostered relationships with the community and saved animal lives. But according to an October 27, 2005 L.A. CityBeat article, a poorly negotiated contract by Stuckey for a spay-neuter van "may have robbed the city of half its needed spay-neuter services" and will endanger animal lives.

Due to a shortage of van operating hours combined with the high spay-neuter quota, anesthetized animals will have to be whipped on and off the operating table at great risk to their health. The District Attorney has been asked to investigate.

Many animal community moderates--such as the dignified and caring former L.A. Animal Commissioner Erika Brunson--who were originally unwilling to jump on the clamorous "we want Stuckey fired" bandwagon, are now steering their own wagons through the streets picking up angry passers-by, such as the fiscally responsible crowd.

The "Reasons to fire Stuckey Email Series" has been circulating for months. Reason number 61 warns the Democratic mayor--who may hope to land in the Governor's office someday—that animal advocates will begin cc'ing the California Republican Party with their complaints. Villaraigosa could be one misstep away from tarnishing his dapper suit with controversies much like those that haunted the Hahn administration.

The mayor says he has decided not to fire Stuckey at this time because the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)—a "direct action" animal rights group that has not injured a human or animal since its inception in 1972–recently planted a smoke bomb at Stuckey's apartment building, making him look like a victim. He says he will not fire an employee who is being threatened or vandalized.

It is understandable that the mayor would want to protect city workers. But in an attempt to be tough on crime, Villaraigosa is being weak on his convictions. If he truly believes Stuckey should be fired, why is he allowing himself to be controlled by the Los Angeles ALF?

If Villaraigosa intends to be a strong leader, he must do what he feels to be right, despite the acts of a few on the "fringe." Democratic leaders did not turn away from unions, in spite of the fact that there were 2193 incidents of union violence against people and property in this country between 1991 and 2001, including those related to bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

Republicans did not become pro-choice after doctors who performed abortion operations were killed. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 13,256 "incidents" against abortion clinics or doctors since 1977, including seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, and 41 bombings. The pro-life movement remains firm in its beliefs.

Despite media hype that makes it seem scary, the ALF's credo prohibits injury to humans and animals. The ALF recently took credit for sending cabs, pizzas and prostitutes to the home of an unsuspecting animal services veterinarian. Although one may disapprove of these tactics, they resemble high school pranks more than crimes.

Villaraigosa's new "ALF policy" is good news for those city employees who fear job termination. Anyone whose porch falls victim to a puff of smoke cannot be fired. At-risk employees who fail to command the attention of the ALF might be tempted to place a suspicious package on their own doorstep.

The City Council has become so concerned about the ALF and the L.A. protest group called the Animal Defense League that it has approved a plan which provides taxpayer dollars for surveillance equipment at the private homes of animal services employees. With high tech cameras, these workers can weed out door-to-door salesmen and pesky in-laws—again on the taxpayer's dime--under the pretense that the big bad wolf, also known as the animal activist, might show up with a feral cat flyer, order them a fake cab or protest on the sidewalk with a sign. Although city workers have a right to feel safe, this measure amounts to another questionable use of limited resources for a city that had 31,000 violent crimes last year.

The mayor continues to react to the "ALF threat." He recently removed Erika Brunson from the Los Angeles Animal Commission and replaced her with surveillance expert Glenn S. Brown. The Commission, which is endorsed by the humane community, provides a compassionate and intelligent voice for the powerless victims of our public shelters: the animals The current commissioners—except for Mr. Brown--may not be experts on installing cameras to detect fake pizza deliveries, but they are experts on how to combat the violence perpetrated against the dogs, cats and other animals that we have a responsibility to protect.

If Mayor Villaraigosa fails to honor his promise to fire Mr. Stuckey and to hire a compassionate and experienced General Manager who can implement a no-kill plan and reform the department, he may find that the animal community is politically-speaking, more bite than bark. A decision to retain Stuckey is likely to become a permanent smudge on Villaraigosa's finely tailored lapel.

The animal community expects the mayor to do the right thing. But in case he doesn't, they have forwarded this article to the Republican Party.

Rent Control Rehab for the Well-Heeled

2005-09-11T19:02:00.000-07:00

For those who don't need it, rent control can become an addiction, resulting from too many years of a sweet deal. It can leave the real estate muscles paralyzed and the investment portfolio sick. "Penny wise" might have a "pound foolish" problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about those who live in rent-controlled apartments because they cannot afford to move; I'm referring to the thousands of well-heeled ones. The affluent --with greater job stability—move less frequently than the needy, thus retain the treasured units. Those who can least afford it must re-rent at higher rates.

I stumbled upon this "housing disorder" as a Los Angeles Realtor, when encountering dozens of well-to-do Westsiders tucked away in dilapidated rent-controlled apartments, determined to stay for the appealing price tags. Landlords have no incentive to make improvements when they collect rents below market-rate.

It didn't matter that these tenants had higher incomes than their landlords, qualified three times over for a loan, or possessed the down payment to purchase rentals of their own. It didn't even matter that they were losing thousands of dollars in tax write-offs and hundreds of thousands in equity. They were proud bingo winners, and under no circumstances would they sacrifice that for a bigger pot.

Three years ago, I almost convinced Anne to buy. She was living in a $509 per month rental in West L.A., having assumed a new identity in order to dupe the building's owner. He still thought Gwendolyn--who lived there prior to James, Henry, Erica and now Anne —was the tenant. Most L.A. landlords cannot raise the rent more than three percent a year until the unit becomes vacant; and some tenants succeed in pretending they are someone else just to keep the price low.

Anne refused to buy the $280,000 townhouse in Burbank we had selected for her purchase. First, it was in the Valley, and many Westsiders have convulsions about investing "over the hill." Secondly, she planned to put tenants in her new place, but worried that they couldn't be trusted.

"Now why would you think that, Gwendolyn? Sorry, I mean Anne."

That townhouse is now worth $550,000, a loss of $270,000 in equity, and her apartment—where she remains a psychological prisoner--has saved her a grand total of $18,000.

To date, Lindy is the only "rent control client" who has closed an escrow with me. In 1993, she agreed to abandon her unit in Santa Monica in order to buy a six bedroom, tennis court estate for $600,000. To afford the mortgage, she rented rooms, transforming the property into a virtual dormitory. The income sustained her unemployed status until 2004 when she sold the property for $1.8 million.

Property values have risen an average of 425% in California since 1980 and 115% in Los Angeles since 2000. If you have the means, escape the "perpetual tenant syndrome" and enter the rent control rehab program before it's too late.

Got property?

A Fence is No Offense

2005-08-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Of the 359 homeowners in my area, 112 are running afoul of the law in a deviously blatant way by committing the heinous "fence offence;" in other words, breaching Los Angeles municipal code sections 12.21 and 12.22 which limit front yard fence and hedge height to a maximum 3 ½ feet above grade. Now that’s a lot of criminal activity for one neighborhood.

With their pens and pads, my investigative team--three 17-year-old, out-of-work babysitters--scoured my neighborhood in search of scoundrels and found one very troublesome woman. This 74 year old widow named Barbara gave them a suspicious story about how her “charming wooden slats” were installed unknowingly by her otherwise law-abiding husband in 1987. My detectives measured the “offensive picket” at a full four feet —rather than the legal 3 ½ -- above grade.

When pressed, Barbara confessed that she had just received a letter from the L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo asking her to “appear for a City Attorney hearing to determine if a criminal complaint should be issued against (her)... for an alleged (fence) violation.”

“It’s a stressful situation,” Barbara says. “It makes me feel like a felon. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on fences that have been in place for so long?”

Fence snitches are on the rise, according to some local representatives. Meddlesome neighbors or quality of life protectors, depending upon ones perspective, protest fences by calling the city’s toll free number anonymously to tattle on their neighbors for wrought-iron, chain link and hedge indiscretions. Barbara’s picket caught the attention of authorities when complainants tipped off the Department of Building and Safety to another neighbor’s fence. A dozen families on the street received the ominous code violation letter.

My investigative crew told me to grab my polygraph and interrogation spotlight, and scurry to Barbara’s home for a "Guantanamo Bay style" probe. But when I arrived, I took pity on the wide-eyed senior, hinting “Have you ever seen Leonardo DiCaprio’s movie, “Catch Me If You Can?”

Of course, I would never advise Barbara to creep further into the recesses of crime by snubbing Mr. Delgadillo and tossing the violation notice in the trash. And I would hate for the fence fiasco to culminate in a showdown at a dusty printing warehouse in France, all on the taxpayers’ dime.

But I wondered-- merely as a philosophical exercise--what would the city do if she were a “no show” at the hearing? How would the city react if Barbara faxed them a list of the other 111 high fences in our neighborhood, or better yet, the tens of thousands in L.A,?

Two things are certain: it would take a lot of out-of-work babysitters to compile the list, and it would start a revolution. Homeowners would not be willing to dismantle fences that cost them thousands of dollars to construct.

Whistle-blowing Barbara could then create a directory of every property with any sort of code violation. In fact, we have one now: it’s called the phone book.

As a Realtor for the past 17 years, I have never sold a home that complies with every Building and Safety rule. There are enclosed patios and guest houses that are not “built to code;” there are water heaters, roofs and air conditioners that have been installed without permits. It can be illegal to park too many vehicles in the driveway or store too many items in the garage.

Due to a number of break-ins in the area, Barbara wants to retain her picket for security. Fence proponents tout other benefits, such as increased privacy and the flexibility to transform front yards into grassy play areas for kids and pets, especially when pools swallow up the rear of a lot. Hill-adjacent properties as well as those that have succumbed to expansion or mansionization may not have room for a yard without enclosing the front.

Too many years have passed and too many fences have been built for Los Angeles to attempt a perilous, impractical and costly u-turn back to the “Leave it to Beaver” days when neighborhoods had unobstructed front lawns. One third of all home-owning Angelenos cannot and should not be inputted into a “fence offender database.”

The Barbaras of this city should not be frightened by official notices, turned into scofflaws and labeled “casualties of the process,” as one fence snitch calls her.

The city could encourage residents to drape existing fences with greenery to capture the pastoral quality of the yesteryear or require them to contribute $100 annually to a neighborhood beautification fund in return for the right to ignore the law.

The city could even change the law to accommodate higher fences and mature hedges; after all, an owner has paid for her front yard, so she should, within reason, be able to use it as she pleases.

The "fence" controversy has traveled beyond Los Angeles to the California communities of Burbank, Santa Monica, Richmond, and Glendale where angry homeowners have flocked to city council meetings—often breaking attendance records--to voice their dissatisfaction with what they perceive to be arcane and restrictive rules. The issue is likely to continue weaving its way across America since most communities limit front-yard fence heights to three to four feet while property owners routinely disregard the laws.

As I said good-bye to infamous L.A. picket, Barbara whispered in my ear.
“Don’t tell Mr. Delgadillo, but I wish my fence were higher. Then I could take out my trash in my nightie.”

I nodded, "Why should a person have to get dressed just to walk out her own front door?"

Much Ado About Mansionization?

2005-07-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

Is there a perpetual shadow hovering over your house? Do you feel as though you live in a Batman movie? You may be the victim of a neighboring McMansion or a new development trend called mansionization, the housing industry's equivalent to bigger portions and fast food.

These mansionizers—who are frequently "spec" builders--buy small or dilapidated homes, raze them and erect massive structures, often resembling sterile apartment buildings. Except for meager set-backs, they swallow up the entire lot, dwarf their Liliputian neighbors and invade the privacy of adjacent yards with their second-story windows. It's sort of like jamming five hotels onto "Baltic Avenue" and calling them a home. There simply isn't enough space without impacting the "Community Chest" and monopolizing the other players in the game.

Most U.S. building codes are "mansionization friendly." For example, Beverly Hills caps home size at 15,000 square feet, restrictive only for those who dream of adding the ever-popular indoor football field.

Los Angeles allows a 7600 square foot home on a 5000 square foot lot. This isn't fuzzy math, and the city is not saying you should re-position your neighbor's fence in the middle of the night, gaining a 2600 foot advantage for your new breakfast nook. You must build towards the sun, potentially leaving your neighbors in the dark.

McMansions are perceived by some as the answer for a "Supersize Me," SUV society that subscribes to the notion that bigger is better and that all of ones extended family—regardless of whether they are still alive—must fit neatly into ones abode, even though there are an average of only 2.5 inhabits per property in the U.S.

Proponents of these mini-castles say they increase the value of neighboring homes, help with much-needed living accommodations and are inevitable. As urban and suburban space becomes scarce, McMansions will pop up in much the same way as "more compressed" Europe is dotted with row houses.

The average size of U.S. homes has grown over the past 45 years from 1,140 to 2,225 square feet, according to a Harvard University study. The National Association of Home Builders reports that 21 percent of houses built in 2004 equaled or exceeded 3000 square feet.

These statistics boost the "inevitability" argument. The "increase in property values" assertion succeeds or fails depending on various factors, such as where ones house is situated, the nature of the community and what type of buyers are looking for homes at the time. Are they gourmets or gourmands? Do they welcome McMansions or are they afraid of monsters?

The last argument by McMansionites seems flawed. It is unclear how a gargantuan property accommodating two or three inhabitants, as statistics indicate, aids the ever-increasing demand for housing. Mansionization's "contribution" seems more likely to reinforce the image of America as a land of over-consumption and spotlight the gap between the rich and middle class.

Outraged neighbors in the California communities of Valley Glen, Sunland, Tujunga, Menlo Park, Del Mar, and Valley Village--and outside of California in Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts--convene with local officials to discuss how to halt these stucco intruders, their goal being to implement moratoriums and anti-mansionization ordinances.

Their arguments typically hinge both on objective and subjective factors. In addition to problems associated with a loss of privacy and sunlight, many seek to retain the character and architectural tone of their neighborhoods. They argue that the "David and Goliath" disparities and lack of pleasing curves on many of these "architecturally challenged" monstrosities make their communities less aesthetically appealing. Criticism of the "boxy" look is all too common.. But what if some people--such as McMansion shoppers--cherish the boxy look?

Should government dictate taste, ruling whether a structure is a fairy princess, a plain Jane or an ugly stepmother? Are Building and Safety employees—usually ex-contractors—experts on charm and color coordination? Will art school graduates have to take their place? New ordinances could force homeowners to hire "housing stylists," in much the same way as Cher and Cameron Diaz employ wardrobe aides and makeup artists.

Do we want to forfeit individuality, self-determination and the freedom to do as we please with our single family dwellings, all in exchange for neighborhood uniformity? After all, architectural consistency—as well as Big Brother—can be found in the condo complex or gated community. C, C & R's can impose fines on those who paint their doors red, have garage sales or allow their over-eating poodle to breach the "doggie weight limit."

Local government must resist the temptation to formulate aesthetically-based rules; however, this does not preclude activist neighbors from boycotting certain builders and educating buyers about the merits associated with rejecting "trophy houses" comprised of cheesy materials. McMansion supply hinges on McMansion demand.

Many builders construct quality products with style, grace and concern for residents of the area. They must be encouraged while less considerate developers should be brought into dialogue with local councilmembers and the stakeholders in the community.

In the end, it's not a matter of "much ado, " but a matter of much to do.
___________________

To see Charlotte Laws' proposal regarding mansionization in Los Angeles, go to www.CharlotteLaws.org and click on "Articles" link.

The real estate websites for Charlotte Laws are www.YourTopBroker.com and www.CharlotteLaws.com

No Kill Animal Shelter Proposal for Oakland, California

2005-06-07T11:04:00.000-07:00

I spent the past year researching the animal shelter situation both in Oakland and elsewhere in the U.S. I have interviewed over 100 individuals from government, the humane community, rescue groups and animal services departments. I have learned that “no kill” is an achievable goal.

Four months ago, I completed a proposal for the city of Los Angeles. I also recently asked Governor Schwarzenegger to establish a California Animal Commission which would assist cities and counties in achieving the “no kill” goal. I have not received a final word from the Governor’s office, but am hopeful. The Commission would provide suggestions and proposals to localities that desire assistance.

I put many hours into my 54 page proposal. I hope you will find my research and suggestions useful. Most of these ideas have been successful elsewhere. The main part of the proposal can be found at www.charlottelaws.org

Click here for the exact link.

Feel free to leave comments on this blog and please urge Oakland to move towards "no kill." Thank you.

From Democracy to Omniocracy: Government for Animals & Nature

2005-06-02T17:00:00.000-07:00

Clint Eastwood recently plunged into the murky political pond with his statement, "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

What is extremism, and is it easy to hold such a stance? Is the political scale truly circular, so that the "far right" clasps hands with the "far left"? Finally, does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive paradigm upon which society can be structured?

If someone screams, "I am a moderate; we should all be moderates" at the top of his lungs and flails around like a lunatic, would he be considered an extremist? An "inappropriate" display of emotion could be "extreme," even when devoid of "extreme" content.

Today's "extremists" are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius—17th Century Dutch politicians—were hacked to death by the populace, largely due to their "radical" and "unsavory" political perspective. Their crime? They were proponents of democracy. Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town.

Who shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? Or the De Witts with their pro-democracy stance?

Do "extreme" beliefs emanate from a mechanical thought process, as Eastwood suggests, rather than an intense philosophical journey? It arguably requires reflection and hypercritical analysis to defend ones theories against the cloned, echoed and mass produced opinion of the common folk; it requires conviction to risk social ostracism and other forms of retaliation.

The "approved" or popular view is more likely to be perfunctory. Why think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling onto the tree or never climb in the first place?

And who are these "far right" and "far left" "idiots" to whom Eastwood refers when he makes his own arguably "extreme" comment? Perhaps he perceives those on the edge as moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger. Perhaps this is how the "right" and "left" overlap or come full circle in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since the "extremes" are subjective and the political continuum fallacious.

The left-right distinction began in France to indicate nothing more than where the political parties sat during Parliament; soldiers were positioned in the center to prevent disagreements from resulting in bloodshed. It has morphed into a Democratic-Republican or liberal-conservative scale.

There is no objective definition for "Democratic," "Republican," "liberal" or "conservative." Real Democrats and Republicans, for example, do not necessarily reside on one particular side of the divide; they move in divergent directions on assorted issues.

In addition, political spectrums vary. One could say, for example, that all governments—democracy, fascism, communism—inhabit the "left" while anarchy or a lack of control rests on the "right." One could argue instead for an up-down continuum with free-market capitalism at the top and communism at the bottom.

Suppose we accept the flawed, but commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we define the "left" as the group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless – animals and nature.

Nonhumans are excluded from our political system, without representation. They have no standing in court; yet corporations do. In fact, nonhumans are virtually omitted from the conversation in our anthropocentric and speciesist society.

A move "left" arguably means to move away from Democracy – which is really just a rule by the elite (humans) – to an Omniocracy (which I describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.).

We are trailing behind other nations, but it might be difficult to amend our Constitution in our What's the Matter With Kansas? country at this time. It might be easier to start with certain states. You may be wondering what would stuffing a few extra words in a state Constitution really do. Well, words are a powerful tool and an important start.

Lastly, does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue that traditional "right" politics/economics prompts a gap between the rich and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations. To implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species have value "in and of themselves," a "top down" government or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems required.

People are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote against their desires. Legislators, however, are different (or should be) because they attain self-worth from helping others, being fair and inclusive, and consulting the "big picture." Plato got this part of his Republic right in my estimate.

Omniocracy requires abolishing the left-right continuum and forming a new paradigm to balance pragmatic concerns with the needs of all. It would be similar in structure to the representative government upon which we now rely. There will naturally be conflicts of interest between species and individuals; but government's job will be to mediate and arbitrate these "disputes."

We are taught democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent political system in the world. It is time to re-evaluate, without letting "extremist" labels scare us. Successful ideas advance through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, finally adoption. I say we start the discussion to which Eastwood's words have provided a starting point.
_____________________

The Clint Eastwood quote is posted on Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's blog and is taken from Feb 28, 2005 issue of Time Magazine.

Another Doomsday, Another Dollar: Shifting Science towards Peace & Ecology

2005-06-02T10:57:00.000-07:00

In his book, Our Final Hour, Cambridge professor and Britain’s “Astronomer Royal” Martin Rees predicts humanity has no more than a 50/50 chance of survival into the next century and that by 2020 a million people will perish due to scientific error or terror. Some would call him prescient, while others would interpret his words as alarmist, resembling a layer cake with environmental fears on top of nuclear fears on top of chemical and biological threats, ad infinitum. With a sci-fi flare, he warns of runaway technology, human clones and an ability to insert memory chips into the brain.

Doomsday predictors get much the same respect as the “toxic fumes” sign at the local service station; they impart their wisdom, yet we yawn. Situations which seem grim and overwhelming, even potentially lethal, tend to be ignored. Attention on more immediate and “American” concerns, such as consumer goods and personal advancement, monopolize our daily thoughts. This is arguably foolhardy and indicative of the “another doomsday, another dollar” mentality.

Rees is not a lone voice on the scientific stage. The “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” reports we have seven minutes until our final bow at midnight. Other reputable experts surmise that a “gray goo” or nanotechnological catastrophe poses the greatest threat. This involves the invention of miniature, self-replicating machines that gnaw away at the environment until it is devoid of life. It need not be deliberate sabotage—as in technological warfare by one nation against another--but could result from a laboratory mishap.

Astronomers speak of fugitive asteroids that could destroy major sections of our planet within the next 30 years. Others point to atom-crashing tests and their potential for a lethal strangelet scenario. Strangelets are malformed subatomic matter, which could distort all normal matter and dissolve the earth in seconds.

There are streams of alerts from environmental experts who tell us natural disasters are on the rise. They warn of climatic change and tell us the world's species die at a rate 1000 times greater than they did prior to human existence due to habitat destruction and the introduction of non-indigenous species into the ecosystem. Their conclusion? If we do not reverse the damaging trend, Earth itself will be extinct.

Should we open our minds to doomsday predictions? And if we accept them, what is the next step to insure or increase our chance of planetary survival?

In his book, Science, Money and Politics, Daniel Greenberg follows a trail of suspicion. He condemns what he believes to be the self-serving, greedy scientific community with its bungled research, conflicts of interest and findings that never see the light of day due to suppression by corporate sponsors. But this seems to be an overly cynical, embellished perspective; there are surely many scientists dedicated to discovery and social responsibility, apart from any personal gain. And we should not forget that offering controversial insights can be at a cost; proponents of “radical” theories often expose themselves to public and professional ridicule.

Regardless of skepticism, the “Pascal’s Wager” game plan seems a good bet. This essentially means we should not gamble with eternity, but instead urge the scientific community to take precautions since Armageddon allows no second chance. Better to err on the side of life, even if it means some black holes will go unexplored and some research grants will be pulled.

Precaution means building contingency plans--such as shields and containment measures--into emerging technologies so that if an experiment goes awry, a safety net will kick into place. It means the scientific community should better police itself. It means committees or boards—both local and international—should be established for oversight and regulations, much like Albert Einstein proposed in 1947 to maintain worldwide peace. Many nation-states and multinational corporations are known for fighting even minimal efforts to regulate dangerous technology, and they must be countered.

There are pragmatic hurdles to be negotiated when trying to impose rules on private parties or on authorities in renegade lands, but the ozone hole “near disaster” demonstrates how the world can cooperate when it comes to life-and-death matters. As cultures dovetail, as communications rise, as borders become more porous, and as the world figuratively shrinks, it will be easier to impose structure and scientific parameters on nations that seem combative today

Science must shift its course and find new mountains to climb. It looks to us for cues. Due to our materialistic bent as a culture, our cursory endorsement of “progress” and our captivation with the Prometheus-like aura of technology, we subtly ask the scientific community to scale those mountains that are the highest (great accolades can be received), the easiest (the path of least resistance) or the most profit-oriented (grant money from special interests or an emphasis on reducing labor so companies can realize greater proceeds) rather than those that are the most ecological and peace-enhancing.

The research community has rivers of creativity and forests of energy that could instead be directed towards rivers and forests. It could move towards ecological preservation and restoration, peaceful alternatives to conflict and a furthering of life on this planet.

We will know a cultural transition is underway when news reports following fires, earthquakes and other disasters address the impact on natural systems and nonhuman species, rather than just the human and economical consequences, such as the number of homes lost. Our capitalistic culture thrives on the fact that nature is cost-free, which in turn, reinforces the notion that it is expendable and devoid of value. This reality must change. Our reality must change. And science must change. It must shift towards peace and ecology. It’s as plain as doomsday.

Removing Intelligence From America

2005-06-01T21:31:00.000-07:00

Removing Intelligence from America or RIA is a serious national problem. It's a widespread malady, or better yet, a side effect from a drug overdose. The drug is our culture, and it is killing any hope of a collective intelligence.

RIA is a devious and subtle process that goes unnoticed until one day when a European or Asian asks us the capital of Spain or the date of the American Revolution, and we freeze. We search for the answer, but it disappeared with our short-term memory three days after our high school history exam in 1979.

The Europeans and the Asians are asking us questions now; they cannot understand why we don't know anything. Is it due to our failing educational system, our focus on money and consumerism, bureaucratic paralysis and the emphasis on job specialization, our isolation from other nations, or all of the above? I fill in "all of the above" with my number two pencil.

They don't use number two pencils in England. Students write essays. The teachers read the pupils' answers rather than attend perfunctory department meetings, and students form sentences rather than guess bubble "B" all the way down the page. My 17 year old daughter--a true American teenager--is an expert on bubble "B," and in lieu of the Classics, has memorized the merchandise at Abercrombie and Fitch.

Our educational system persuades us away from long-term memory skills, generalized knowledge, and learning for enjoyment. When remembering is not the goal, forgetting is achieved. It tries to be fair or automated at the cost of all else, and accentuates our right vs. wrong mindset.

We are arguably an overly moralistic, black or white society. Are you with us or against us? Did you pass or fail? When subjectivity and creativity are compromised and replaced with a theoretical or actual "true or false" exam, intellectual disinterest often results.

We embrace another "either-or" and make it an ideal: to be a consumer or a salesperson at all times, both contributing to the decline of our national IQ. These roles are promoted through our primary educators: television, in which news or other programming is slotted in between commercials; and our failing schools, in which we are taught how to specialize.

American media emphasizes buying and selling, and both distract us from relationships, art, grassroots politics, intellectual discourse, and of course, the world at large. Why learn poetry, explore philosophy, or study foreign customs when you can purchase a trendy skateboard or make an extra few bucks from a business deal? We are taught to buy low and sell high and finagle the deal.

In order to achieve and acquire, most Americans develop a niche and cannot operate outside this limited range. Churchill wrote his own speeches, yet most U.S. politicians have speech writers, advisors, assistants and advisors to their assistants. Tony Blair regularly answers a broad range of unscripted questions on his feet in the House of Commons; George W. Bush knows how to read a cue card. Sometimes.

English barristers tend to be generalists while American lawyers are mostly specialists. There are no depositions in England: cross-examination is an art form requiring overall mastery of the law. In America, deposed parties endure countless questions. The ensuing trial is nothing other than a stage piece in which all details have been worked out by niche lawyers in advance.

The same is true in government: most U.S. jobs are standardized, requiring a fill in the dot mentality. Bureaucratization and excessive regulations relieve the individual of decision-making, leading to specialization, and eventually boredom. There's no need to be clever or see the grand scheme because the dozens and dozens of rules know the answer. The system is supposedly "intelligent," so the individual need not be.

Our geography and youth as a country may account for some of our ignorance. We stand relatively alone in a very big land. European nations have to listen to and negotiate with their neighbors; they have to know the situation outside their borders. We don't enjoy the rich tradition that some nations have, therefore many of us ignore the historical altogether. We're a new country, so we only want to know about new things.

But is this in our best interest? Should our physical isolation mean intellectual isolation? Even though we have a roomy first-class seat, shouldn't we know what's going on in coach? Shouldn't we look out the window to get a glimpse of the big picture--the past--to see how our journey fits into the whole and how it may impact the future? If we put up our tray tables and put down our "Sky Mall" magazine, maybe over time we can boost our collective intelligence and gain greater respect from the rest of the world.

Gentlemen Prefer Blogs: Jerry Brown Enters the Blogosphere

2005-05-27T22:45:00.000-07:00

According to a recent survey, gentlemen prefer blogs to the tune of 75 percent; roughly 25 percent of blog frequenters are female. But I want to invite all you ladies to invade the male space. What exactly is a blog? Well, it is an online journal or tabla rasa in the Internet zone where average people can post articles and comments, expostulate, and generally schmooze about topics ranging from food to politics.

It is also a retaliation against what bloggers call MSM; you know, mainstream media, such as CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times. The argument is that MSM is controlled by corporations and other insiders; the blog provides the opportunity for the little guys, or gals, to make their otherwise inaudible opinions known.

I stumbled upon this process when Googling for "Schopenhauer." It turned out Mayor Jerry Brown—formerly the Governor of California—had just started his own blog. The philosopher that he is, he had made comments about Schopenhauer, as well as about teen drag racing through Oakland, curfews for ex-convicts, and freedom-of-speech issues.

I figured I would chime in without telling my fellow bloggers that I have a regular column in MSM. Someone had already blasted Jerry for having the nerve to start a blog when he can be heard on O'Reilly's Factor and Hardball.

I did not tiptoe into the medium, as I should have, but rushed in by calling America a land of parrots since 9/11, with only one line—a salute to the flag. This drew fire, and I was called a moron by some moron in the blogosphere. How dare he? He was tarnishing the reputation of blogging, straddling a fine line, butchering his chance of being graced by my deep, insightful words again.

I felt better a day later after reading the 255 entries on this one topic and finding that the anonymous and well-known--from some guy named "Smiling Simian in Shades" to Linda Ronstadt, Bruce Springsteen, Noam Chomsky, and even Jerry himself--had all been called equally insulting names. If Jerry--who is brilliant, in my estimation--can be attacked, it was not a big deal anymore.

The next day Jerry posted a comment about political extremism, and I was ecstatic because I knew it was my chance to delve into my favorite topic: dead philosophers. Both he and I seem to enjoy this popular hobby.

When I mentioned how I am particularly a devotee of 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, some guy who called himself "Bill Gates" (yeah, right) attacked Spinoza as "having been discredited long ago." Excuse me? It's one thing to fire bullets at me, but I will not stand for vitriol against my future husband—you know, in my next life.

"Bill Gates" went on to tell me to go live with the animals. Although he was referring to the furry kind, I politely replied, "No. I don't want to live with you."

Then someone named HA offered his two cents by insinuating that my carefully reasoned arguments were tedious. I asked, "Is this a mere joke as your name implies? Ha ha, HA."

Blogging is more than entertainment. It is a way to keep shelves stocked in the marketplace of ideas. It allows brave political souls to get input from their constituents about public policy. Eight million people have blogs and 3% of Americans read them daily.

Maybe you'll join the trend. Bill Gates is waiting for you.

Patriots or Parrots: Imprisoning Tongues in America

2005-05-23T14:38:00.000-07:00

It can be dangerous to engage in free speech. This year alone, 242 journalists, in countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have been tossed into jail for their words, and one has been killed.
Here at home, our bodies remain free, but our tongues are imprisoned. As Dan Rather stated after 9/11, "Patriotism has run amok." Reminiscent of Joe McCarthy's "red hysteria," we are told to shut up, salute the flag, and applaud White House policy during this "war on terror." Otherwise we risk being branded un-American.

Political satirist Bill Maher was publicly skewered and lost his show "Politically Incorrect." The Dixie Chicks were plucked off the radio, and a 33,000 pound tractor was used to crush their CDs in a public protest. The latest casualty in the "word witch hunt" is University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill who likened some World Trade Center victims to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann, and who may lose his tenured position as a result. A number of journalists in America have lost their jobs.

Rather than examine the flaws or merits of their controversial speech, I will present three questions for further reflection.

First, is it patriotic to parrot the cheers choreographed by a Commander-in-Chief? Or was Thomas Jefferson correct when he wrote, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

If one believes our nation's policies to be in error, isn't the path of courage to speak out, the path of cowardice to remain silent? Should one go down with the Titanic, if one may have a strategy for keeping it afloat, regardless of how much it might inconvenience or enrage the other passengers? Is it possible that those who have been demonized for uttering so-called seditious words are in some way assisting our country, whether for right or wrong, giving us a perspective that we may have otherwise overlooked?

Perhaps the freedom of speech amendment is First because the ability to speak openly is largely what it means to be American. The paradox is that the most outspoken polemicist can be both courageously loyal and yet demonized as a traitor. In fact, two true patriots can present diametrically opposed arguments at the same time. Parrots, on the other hand, have only one general line.

Secondly, is the "war on terror" really a war, and how does this impact freedom of speech? Traditionally, wars are armed conflicts between sovereign states; now we have declared war on an emotion, terror. Our soldiers are fighting and dying, but because the war is against "terror," it can never end. Terror, like drugs and poverty, cannot be entirely eliminated. Since the battle cannot end, does our silence never end? Can we never again speak against U.S. policy?

Thirdly, is it possible that slurs directed at individuals for their "lack of patriotism" are nothing more than political maneuvers, meant to gain power and discredit one's opponents? Democrats also use this tactic against Republicans, such as when Michael Moore said, "They are not patriots. They are hate-riots."

Yet, Republicans are viewed as the more patriotic party, thus enjoy greater success with this marginalizing technique. We should beware of suspicious labels and partisan motives that relegate ones political adversaries to the enemy's cave, to a conspiratorial pact with Bin Laden.

For each individual whose speech is targeted, there are no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, who censor innovative thoughts before attempting to offer them in the marketplace of ideas.

The next time you hear the word "unpatriotic" or "un-American" tossed about, do not accept. Question. Think about censorship and self-censorship. Think about whether you want our country to have a staple menu of bread and water or one listing many flavorful dishes.

Think about whether you believe in Voltaire's idea, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or Ari Fleisher's idea that all Americans should "watch what they say" in this time of crisis.

Think about whether you want a land of parrots or one of patriots.

Conformity, Authority and Morality

2005-05-20T23:05:00.000-07:00

There are financial scandals implicating and even indicting executives from Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Tyco and Merck. There are statistics showing that 10% of American households steal cable television, that 70% - 75% of students have cheated in school, and that lying is a normal part of social interaction.

There are the prisoner abuse scandals that point to sadistic behavior by seven American military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, with follow-up accusations against European troops, and later against the California National Guard at a separate incarceration facility north of Baghdad.

Are these "questionable" acts indicative of the genetic or moral flaws of "a few bad apples," or is there a particular social climate or situation that paves the way for certain types of behavior? Is Shakespeare right in that "all the world is a stage," and this stage can transform a law-abiding citizen into a crook, an ethical person into a dissembler, or a pacifist into a sadist?

Numerous experiments have investigated this question and found that a person's behavior is often drastically altered by those around him and by his overall circumstance, rather than by inherent personality traits or professed individual values.

At the Princeton Theological Seminary, two psychologists conducted a study in which seminary students were asked to relate the parable of the Good Samaritan into a tape recorder at a nearby building. A "victim," feigning physical distress and needing help, was positioned en route. The instructor warned half of the students that they were late to make the recording and should hurry to the proper location, while telling the other half that there was no need to rush, but they might as well head over to the building early. Of those in a hurry, 90% walked around the injured "victim" or stepped over him to get to the destination. Of those with time to spare, 63% assisted the man in need. The context of the situation proved essential: the desire to obey orders and to conform to the perceived time limitation played a significant role in the seminarians decision as to whether to be a Good Samaritan.

Social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted his own experiments in 1951. He wanted to see if an ordinary person would conform with a group decision when it was clear that this decision was erroneous. An unsuspecting subject was placed in a classroom with seven actors who agreed one after the other that two lines were equal in length when there was in fact a huge discrepancy: one line was short and the other was long. Then the subject was asked for his opinion; only 29% of those questioned deviated from the majority, thus establishing the power of conformity and authority. Those who answered correctly reported feeling uncomfortable when doing so. If the decision-making had been related to ethics or aesthetics, rather than the empirically verifiable length of two lines, experts agree that compliance with the group decision would have been even higher.

Asch's work was inspired by Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist who wondered if people would execute strangers if they were simply told to do so. Milgram was fascinated with the Nuremberg trials and wondered if Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was inherently evil or had just followed orders in such a way as any person would.

Milgram invited ordinary Americans whom he labeled "teachers" to give electric shocks to a stranger whom he called the "learner" when the latter was unable to provide the correct response in a supposed memory test. Of course, there were no real shocks and memory was not being tested, but each teacher was unaware of this. The learner screamed with pain and continually begged for the teacher to release him from his straps. The testing device was labeled from level 0 to 450. 100-150 delivered mild shock while higher levels were labeled "very strong," "extreme severity," danger, severe shock," and finally "XXX" (or fatal). Milgram had asked accredited colleagues in advance to guess what they thought the outcome would be; they hypothesized that no one would go above 150 volts with the exception of the rare sadist who would push the lethal 450 lever.

The actual results were quite different: 66% of the teachers "executed" the victim, merely because they were told to do so by the authoritative figure: the psychologist. Of those who refused to go to 450, no one stopped before reaching 300 volts; and nobody helped the victim, thus proving to Milgram that part of the human condition is blind obedience.
For 25 years, Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by numerous researchers in the United States, Australia, South Africa and in several European countries with similar results. In a German study, over 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the learner.

"Abuse" also resulted from a study conducted at Stanford University by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. He created a mock prison, and average university students were drafted to be prisoners and guards. They passed mental and physical exams, and coins were tossed to see who was to assume which role. The authoritative impact of the guard uniform with the accompanying nightstick and mirrored sunglasses converted these previously docile students into increasingly violent enforcers, and the inferior status of the convicts, reinforced by their low ranking garb, prison numbers (rather than names) and confinement to tiny cells, transformed them into victims. Formerly active prisoners became passive; healthy ones became sick.

Both sets of students said they lost their identities and forgot they were a part of an experiment. The illusion became a reality. The two week study was called off after only six days because the treatment of the prisoners became too brutal and humiliating. The photos revealing the Abu Ghraib violations are astoundingly similar to the video footage taken of the Zimbardo experiment.

There are studies that show how lying, cheating and stealing are also the product of circumstance rather than character and how the notion of "us" vs. "them" is a fallacy. Two Yale University psychologists Hugh Hartshorne and Mark May secretly gave approximately 10,000 children the opportunity to lie, cheat, or steal on various academic tests, sporting competitions and other projects. The children's personal values were evaluated during this extensive study, 71% of the kids exhibited "unethical" behavior, and it was concluded that "honest or dishonest behavior is largely determined by circumstances," not moral beliefs.

In another incident, computers in a Manhattan credit union failed and mistakenly permitted customers to withdraw unlimited funds over their available balances. Rather than inconvenience its customers, the union decided to trust their patrons not to overdraw their accounts with their ATM cards.

Four thousand customers took advantage of the error; some stole as much as $10,000 from the financial institution. In the end, $15 million remained missing, and the authorities had to be called to make arrests.
There are countless other studies about how external factors are highly predictive of so-called "moral" behavior. It may be disheartening to learn that people are generally conformists, blind followers of authority and highly influenced by circumstance rather than character and values, but there are reasons to be uplifted by these findings.

First, this behavior can be explained: people are genetically predisposed towards conformity and ethnocentrism because these traits aid in survival. We cannot live without the assistance of others, and this type of societal cooperation requires some adherence to established rules. Cultural group selection is certainly essential in the same way that natural selection is.

Secondly, political leaders, reformers, revolutionaries, creative thinkers, innovators, public policy developers and anyone with a different slant or position on an issue should rejoice. This paradigm shift means implementing change is much more promising: situations are fluid and malleable while internalized moral beliefs are often rigid.
The recent debate over gay civil unions is a case in point. When Massachusetts and San Francisco began challenging the status quo, polls revealed that most Americans were against the legally recognized pairing of homosexual couples. However, in the course of the past year, statistics have radically changed. It may be the pervasive news coverage, the compelling arguments in favor, the open national debate, or all of the above, but external factors have clearly contributed to a shift in perspective. In a CBS nationwide poll conducted in May 2004, the percentage of people who favored civil unions was up to 56% from 39% in November 2003, and those opposed was down to 40% from 53%.
The ability to change a situation, a political climate, a law, or a collective conscious is indeed possible without heavy-duty pliers or a hammer. Reform is not at war with genetic, entrenched, or internalized stagnations. To a great extent, the only real obstacles are more flexible, external factors, such as whether there are cameras in the prison to monitor prisoner abuse, whether teachers are vigilant about plagiarism and cheating, whether corporate America prosecutes its white-collar criminals, and whether a credit union shuts down its ATM rather than naively trusting its patrons. Perhaps "The Bad Seed" of circumstance is not so bad after all.

Writing L.A.'s Wrongs With A No-Kill Animal Shelter Proposal

2005-05-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles kills 30,000 – 50,000 of our dogs and cats at our city shelters each year for an annual cost of $14 million dollars. Not only does this turn our city's animal "shelters" into death houses, at great expense, it is entirely unnecessary.

"No kill" means to end the killing of all healthy or curably sick dogs and cats at shelters within city boundaries.

Mayor Hahn says he wants to make L.A. "no kill" by 2008, but inside sources say this is mere rhetoric, for he will be out of office by then, and that city bureaucrats have no notion how this objective might be accomplished other than to increase shelter space.

The city is spending $154 million to renovate and build new shelters. At the completion of the construction project, the kennels will increase from 366 to 1253. These 887 extra "runs" may give the animals a longer holding time, but L.A. cannot solve its euthanasia problem without a more comprehensive plan, drawing on a cooperative effort between government agencies and the animal rescue / welfare community.

"No kill" is an achievable goal: San Francisco has virtually succeeded, while Utah, New York City and various counties around the country have begun the process.

These areas rely heavily upon financial assistance from a nonprofit called Maddie's Fund, which has $200 million dollars in free money available to aid localities, even entire states, with the "no kill" objective. Maddie's Fund provides a structured, ten-year (or shorter) plan.

Rich Avanzino, the head of the organization told me several months ago, "Until you, no one has ever asked us to help Los Angeles. We would probably give $20 million, but since the city is so big, we would require that you raise a matching $20 million in nonprofit funds over a decade. This would be easy. New York raised $16 million in a few months."

Though I was shocked to learn I was the first from LA to approach Maddie's Fund, I saw it as a cue, the impetus to do extensive research and write a full-scale proposal for Los Angeles.

My three-part proposal—which costs nothing to implement and will eventually save the city money—is weaving through the bureaucracy now. It has made it to the ears of the L.A. Animal Commissioners, been passed by the Greater Valley Glen Council, and sits on the desk of Guerdon Stuckey, the new General Manager of Animal Services.

The first two parts of my proposal are to be undertaken simultaneously.

First, I have proposed that each of the 86 Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles appoint a local Director of Animal Welfare (DAW), who will have a duty to look out for the animals in the area. The DAW might arrange Animal Care Fairs, with free spay-neuter, dog training, education, and adoption services. One DAW might deal with dog-fighting problems, while another may assist with horse-related issues. Neighborhood Council meetings and newsletters are cost free means for reporting progress or pulling the community together for a particular project. A similar idea was practiced in Alameda County, resulting in emptier shelters.

Secondly, Los Angeles must prepare the general strategy. It should establish a nonprofit regardless of whether it decides to take Maddie's Fund money or "go it alone." The Maddie's Fund two-pronged program--which focuses both on increased adoptions and spay-neuter efforts--will not give money directly to any government entity, but only to a nonprofit set up on its behalf. In addition, people prefer to contribute when a nonprofit tax deduction is available. Two local businessmen have agreed to donate a combined $500,000 to start the matching fund.

The new Los Angeles nonprofit can review numbers, strategies, and successes related to current Maddie's Fund participants. Data is available on the Internet, and the base plan can be found at www.MaddiesFund.org

Maddie's Fund money can be used to finance or supplement spay-neuter and adoption costs, as well as to bankroll less orthodox campaigns. Utah has a "Hooters for Neuters" program, which links pet population control with the restaurant chain. Some Oregon malls install satellites to advertise adoptable dogs and cats to shoppers.

Many localities have instituted free dog training, "pets ok" rental referrals, humane education, free feral cat assistance, foster homes for pets, enforcement of laws regarding current breeding limits, longer or different shelter hours to accommodate the public, better public relations and professional advertising campaigns, and bathed and beautified shelter dogs to make them look more adoptable. Incentives can even be provided for those who adopt from shelters, such as free shots and medical exams for their new companion animals.

Thirdly, my proposal allows for a potential legislative solution after the completion of part one and two; if, for example, Los Angeles has not eliminated the killing of pit bulls and pit bull type dogs. This is currently the problem in sections of Northern California. These types of dogs are regularly euthanized, while all other breeds find homes.

The State of California disallows breed specific legislation with respect to dangerous dogs (Section 31601), however it says nothing about breed specific legislation for highly un-adoptable animals. The latter shifts emphasis away from depriving people of a right, such as the right to own the dog of their choice, and towards the need to preserve a life.

A "Highly Un-Adoptable Dog Law" could be presented in the form of a short-term pilot program and passed as an ordinance by the L.A. City Council. It could require, for example, pit bulls to be "fixed" and micro-chipped, and prohibit those not already living in the area from entering. The pilot program could be evaluated routinely for its efficacy or lack thereof.

A number of city officials, Maddie's Fund representatives, animal welfare leaders, and insurgent animal activists reviewed my drafts in advance. All expressed approval and a willingness to cooperate with the plan, an astounding achievement, considering the conflicting opinions and combative attitudes that have dominated the L.A. shelter situation for some time.

If my proposal can find a home in L.A., perhaps our four-legged friends can look forward to homes too, rather than the rendering plant near Vernon, where many unfortunately find themselves now.

California's Sex Offender Database: Is Your Home at Threat Level Red?

2005-05-14T14:22:00.000-07:00

Quick. Can you recite the name, address, and crimes committed by the sexual offenders on your street or in your neighborhood? Apparently many people can. During the first 96 hours after the Megan's Law database was launched on December 15, 2004, there were 14 million hits to the website, out of a total of only 35 million people in California. In fact, the site at Meganslaw.ca.gov was so clogged that many received a message, "Server busy. Try again later."

Moraga has only one sexual offender registered, as do Toluca Lake and Malibu. After an extensive search, I found only one area with a better record. It is Bermuda Dunes, wherever the heck that is. Turns out it is near Palm Desert, and it reports no sexual offenders at all. The most dismal records I could find were Modesto and Sacramento. Modesto has 513 offenders and a population of 200,000; this equals one offender for every 389 people in the area. Sacramento has 1567 offenders and a population of 407,000, which means one offender for every 259 people.

The "Big Brother type" database is not good news for the 63,000 offenders. The American Civil Liberties Union claims this group may become the victims of vigilante attacks, plus it is argued that many of these ex-cons committed illegal acts decades ago, purport to be reformed, thus should not be revealed at all. There is also the possibility that those listed will never find a job when the Google search engine retrieves the database in association with their names.

But what truly concerns me is never mentioned: the ramifications for non-offenders. It is not politically correct to mention anything that could detract from the noble and worthy goal of protecting children, but what if the database does not indeed defend anyone and what if it destroys the lives and livelihoods of non-offenders by its mere existence? I argue it could.

The first potential problem relates to the safety of children. Parents or guardians may embrace a false sense of security when they check to find no offender resides near their home or child's school, and as a result, may let down their guard. A full 20 percent of those listed in the database--indicated by a red check mark beside their name--have secretly moved to undisclosed locations. Plus those accurately listed have cars. They can drive to Bermuda Dunes.

Not all sex offenders have been caught; in fact, exact addresses are available only for the 33,500 who have committed the most serious crimes, and the website omits information on 22,000 other offenders convicted of less serious sex crimes. It is never entirely safe to leave a child unattended, regardless of what a database says. Complacency could prove a dangerous trend.

Secondly, the Sexual Offender Database is riddled with inaccuracies; the Attorney General's website, which hosts the list, warns about possible gaps in information and the danger of relying on names and addresses to identify people. Because so many of those registered have not reported their change of address; their new neighbors are unaware of their presence, and their old communities are stigmatized.

Kyle and Pam Brown, an East Bay couple, experienced this problem first hand. They were shocked to find their address added to the database with a detailed map to their home. They had purchased the property 11 years earlier, unaware of the previous owner's crimes. Frightened of revenge attacks and embarrassed to be linked to the offender, the Browns asked that the inaccuracy be rectified immediately. The State Department of Justice said it could not replace an old address until it received a new one from the sex offender. Only after pressure and unflattering media reports did the authorities agree to delete the address in a timely manner.

Thirdly, it may sound shallow, but the database could seriously impact real estate values and the ability to sell ones property. There are people, such as the elderly, sick, or financially strapped, who may count on their equity or need to sell in a hurry. They may encounter difficulty if Mr. Sexual Offender lives next door, across the street, behind the backyard, or even three homes away.

Because the database can be accessed by the click of a computer mouse, buyers are likely to check before making an offer, and sellers may be required by law to disclose these "unsavory" neighbors. As a result, property owners may find themselves unable to sell or forced to reduce the list price dramatically. This is especially problematic for single family residences because home buyers, who often have kids, are less likely to be nonchalant about a questionable neighbor.

Over forty percent of the offenders listed in Napa, Santa Rosa, Tarzana, Burbank, Ojai, Mill Valley, Vacaville, San Pablo and Northridge live in houses rather than apartments. Ironically, it could become commonplace to pay offenders to relocate. Why not pay a convicted felon $5000 to move to the other side of town when it will result in a $25,000 - $50,000 increase in equity? As odd as it seems, offenders could find they profit from the negative exposure on the Internet.

Lastly, there is the fear factor. Evidence suggests that offenders are more likely to re-offend under stressful conditions, such as when they are ridiculed or unable to find work. In other words, our communities and children may be in greater jeopardy when these people are publicly exposed.

Fear can also impact non-offenders directly. Talk radio callers boast about driving their children past the "dangerous" homes in their area. What is the emotional impact of this exercise on the child? On the adult?

We are arguably a fearful nation. The nightly news is replete with warnings, violence and disasters; perhaps because instilling fear heightens advertisers' sales. Perhaps because it scores high ratings for the network.

For two years, we have been treated to Homeland Security's color-coded terror alerts, though the government itself admits that "raising the threat condition has economic, physical, and psychological effects on the nation." Does this really make us more secure? Do people still notice these alerts?

It may follow that the existence of an easily accessible sexual offender database might have a similar impact on our state, raising fears, achieving little and impacting real estate values. Will we be better protected by knowing that little Suzy's house is in a red zone, little Bobby's school is in an Orange Zone and little Billy walks his dog in a Yellow Zone? I suspect not, but hope I am wrong.

Polls and the Power of Self-Manipulation

2005-05-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

Being a poll or focus group participant is more fun than visiting a therapist. In the case of the former, you are asked to share your opinion with a room full of total strangers or anonymously with the entire nation.

With respect to the latter, you are only able to tell one person: the psychologist. To make matters worse, this person is under an ethical obligation to keep your opinions private; unless, of course, you speak of committing heinous crimes. By making beastly confessions, you may be heard by all of the people, some of the time. But then you will end up in prison, only to be heard by none of the people, all of the time. It's a real bummer.

Focus groups are qualitative, in-depth interviews with a select group of people on a particular product or issue while polls are verbal or written questionnaires that must be answered in a multiple choice format. With polls, there is no room for explanation, details, or in many cases, accuracy. If you fail to fit neatly into the form's or interviewer's pre-ordained categories, you must guess, lie or risk not qualifying for the survey; which, of course, means your opinion will not be heard. And who wants that?

Although I have been involved personally with a number of market research focus groups—such as one sponsored by the White House years ago to help Hillary Clinton with her now defunct universal healthcare initiative—I have only once participated in a poll. This was for the 2004 presidential election, and what I learned about the polling process and potentially flawed results was shocking.

Polls seem to provide a valuable gauge of public opinion, yet they will always be criticized for accidental, sometimes intentional, inaccuracies. For example, polls were wrong about the Dewey - Truman race in 1948, Reagan – Carter in 1980, and Bush – Gore in 2000. They concluded Kerry would prevail in 2004. Polls were used recently to make the argument that American values are "red" and that no one will ever be elected president who tries to circumvent this "Gospel" truth.

Frank Luntz, the pollster who has gained notoriety through regular appearances on Chris Matthews' Hardball, says that words are critical in shaping public opinion. He adds that many politicians do not understand that the way a question or comment is framed can mean the difference between political victory or defeat.

The book, Perfectly Legal, says the question, "Would you pay more taxes to halt rising crime rates?" wins a substantially higher percentage of the "yes" votes than "Would you pay more taxes to increase law enforcement," although both mean the same thing.

This explains how religious groups can come up with figures showing public opposition to gambling while casino interests can demonstrate the reverse. It explains why conservatives may have altogether different statistics than liberals.

Measurement itself is subjective. If a pollster calls to ask if you saw the Bush vs. Kerry debate, what qualifies as an affirmative response? What if you saw a ten seconds while "flipping channels" in search of pro-wrestling or Extreme Makeover? What about a full ten minutes? What if you had the sound turned down, while negotiating business on the phone?

What if you watched the whole debate, but immediately forgot what was said after turning off the set? Can you honestly tell the pollster you watched it? If you do, will you skew the results? John Zogby says, "Even the most thorough polls are open to interpretation."

My 2004 election experience involved the Zogby International polling organization. I volunteered to be an e-mail respondent, and I received questionnaires on a regular basis, especially after significant events, such as the Democratic and Republican conventions and Kerry's hunting expedition.

What I learned from this experience was astounding. I was the victim of self-manipulation, and my vote was, in the end, not spontaneous, but instead the product of thought processes which normally would never have come to the fore.

The survey results I created for Zogby—and I say "created" because it became an inventive enterprise—were mostly born of cursory moves, but sometimes more deliberate ones. My ambiguous and puzzling behavior was evident in five ways.

First, there was the "It's better to fabricate a bit, but be counted" factor. This means that when I encountered a Zogby question which didn't work for me, such as when asked whether I was a liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, not sure, or none of the above, I refused to select "not sure" or "none of the above," even though these were closer to the truth.

I repeatedly answered "moderate," because "not sure" made me sound indecisive or doltish. With "none of the above," I was convinced my opinions would be tossed aside. I had to be counted. Better to be a "pretend moderate."

Secondly, there was the "Shoot, I misread the last question, but can't go back" factor. This was mostly born of computer fear and occurred when I would click to the next page of the questionnaire and realize that I botched the previous question. Hitting "back" is always risky. Better to leave the wrong answer than lose the survey in the Internet black hole. So I did.

Thirdly, there was the "Hazy memory" factor. When I encountered questions in which I had previously fabricated an answer, such as pretending to be a moderate, I would sometimes forget what I had said. This created panic and the need to try to reconstruct what I had done before.

I specifically had problems with my religion. I consider myself a "Jewish Jain." Along with various forms of the Christian faith, "Jewish" was an option, but "Jain" was not. This time, however, Zogby also provided a fill-in blank, along with the usual, less appealing "not sure" and "none of the above."

I could never remember whether I had chosen "Jewish," or written "Jain," or written "Jewish Jain," or completely gone crazy and answered "not sure" or "none of the above." It was terribly confusing and stressful. I found myself trying to re-create answers I had given in the previous weeks and months.

Fourthly, there was the "No one is gonna manipulate me, except me" factor. Because the questionnaires were sent after consequential events--such as when the Swift Boat ads aired or Cheney falsely declared he had never met Edwards--it became evident that Zogby wanted to know if I had been swayed by these factors.

I could not possibly look like a vacillator, like I could be controlled or convinced by a mere "incident" reported in the press. I was an independent thinker, by gosh. My self-image was at stake, so I steadfastly clung to the same answers time and time again; that is, if I could remember what they were.

Lastly, there was the "I can't disappoint the poll" factor." Since the onset, I had committed to the same candidate over and over, due to the "No one is gonna manipulate me, except me" factor.

I had completed my last Zogby questionnaire, and it was time to vote for president. It would be unethical to deviate now. I couldn't abandon that poor poll, leave it to wither, forgotten in a hazardous landfill somewhere. It trusted me. It needed me. It wanted me to authenticate it. I may have manipulated my vote in the end so as not to disappoint the poll. I cannot be sure.

But I am sure of two things. First, It would be interesting to see a poll about poll participants like me--the results which, of course, couldn't be trusted. Secondly, Seemingly accurate studies may be tied to the "Self-fulfilling prophecy" factor. Pollsters and poll participants may be fooling all of the people, all of the time. Including themselves.