Thoughts on a Wedding. . .

While I typically keep personal things off this blog - I would be remiss if I didn't mention a few things about the best day of my life, my wedding to Beth, this past Saturday.  The wedding was great - more than great - and I know the implications of the wedding will be greater.  I get to spend the rest of my life with the woman of my dreams.

Here are a few things about wedding planning - its going to be hard on you and your soon to be spouse no matter what.  A wedding is three things that typically don't go together - a ceremony, a meal, and a party - and you have to smash them together in a way that's seamless.  And you have to take into account everything - how people will feel about this decision or that decision, and how it will affect your guests and the flow.  For instance, we lit candles in memory of Beth's older brothers who passed at the ceremony, but the question came up, should we include my grandmother, who just passed?  Ultimately, we chose against it because Grandma wouldn't have wanted to be mentioned at a Catholic ceremony, but even then we had to explain our decision to my Mom.

Anyway, take the fact that the party is the biggest party you will ever throw, and needing to take into account what everyone wants, and the fact that everyone has opinions on what a wedding should be, and suddenly, you get a ball of stress a mile wide.  My poor bride nearly drove herself crazy just trying to make everyone happy.  Also, I tend to be meticulous in researching everything, and that indecisiveness drove her crazy.

That said, we had great vendors, and all should be mentioned and honored here.

First, Founder's Chapel was spectacular, and Darlene Polak, the coordinator was phenomenal in keeping everyone in line, but in a easy going fashion.  Father Lawrence Agi, the Chaplain at Mercy Hospital, was a true star, and everyone loved him. He was pretty much the perfect priest for us. Combine that with the "Holy shit, what an amazing church!" and great music courtesy of Annette Welsh, and the ceremony exceeded our expectations.

Second, Jim Turner, our florist, went above and beyond, and then went even further than that. Seriously, the flowers were jaw-dropping.  I typically don't even notice flowers, these were amazing. Really, every decision he made was perfect - beyond perfect.

Third, we were very happy with Michael Lawrence Photography - Michael was recommended by a friend, and he got great shots while at the same time was unobtrusive, and willing to work with us.  Of course, we still have to see our pictures, but he was great to work with, and I look forward to seeing them.

Fourth, our wedding venue, the Lafayette Hotel, put out great food, and was a beautiful venue.  The staff, when we worked directly with them, were helpful and courteous.

Fifth, the guys at Miles Ahead, our wedding band, were equally perfect.  They were mellow when they needed to be mellow, but got everyone dancing when we wanted them to do that. Everyone thought they were one of many highlights.  You guys did great.

Sixth, Elizabethan Desserts did a fantastic job of getting us the best desserts, and did so at a reasonable price. I don't think anyone could've done a better job, and Elizabeth, we appreciate all you did for us. Fantastic stuff.

Lastly, I have a bit of unfinished business - I promised Beth that I would sing her a song at the wedding, but I forgot my queue.  So, Beth, this is for you:

Thoughts on the Mayor's Race, Other Mayors and NFL Bullying

Welcome to another episode of random thoughts blogging - unfortunately, I think this will become more and more common for me the busier I get.  But without further ado. . .

1) I Have No Idea Who I'm Supporting in Race for Mayor of San Diego

In the aftermath of Bob Filner resigning (and actually pleading guilty to felony assault charges!), we in San Diego have a new mayor's race.  While there are a fair number of candidates, there are essentially four who matter (because of money and connections): David Alvarez, Nathan Fletcher, Kevin Faulconer, and Mike Aguirre.  Alvarez and Faulconer are currently City Councilmembers, Fletcher is a former State Assemblymember, and Aguirre used to be City Attorney.  Aguirre and Alvarez are long-time Democrats, Fletcher just flipped parties, and Faulconer is a Republican who doesn't want to be known as such.

Now picking who I don't like in this race is relatively easy.  Even though I respect Aguirre deeply, and hope to one day make as much money as a Plaintiffs' lawyer as Aguirre did, his tenure as City Attorney was messy.  Not all of the mess was Mike's doing, but a good chunk of it was because he's an abrasive guy.  As for Faulconer, well, his career as a City Councilman was relatively undistinguished.  His two major pieces of legislation, banning booze on the beach and ending some pensions for City employees, aren't exactly gems in my book.  His beach booze ban originally had a huge loophole in it that the City Council had to go back and fix.  And on the pension thing, he played second banana to Carl DeMaio and Jerry Sanders, so he didn't have a lot to do with it.  Add to that the fact that Faulconer is a diehard Republican, and is desperately trying to hide that fact, and yeah, you can see why I'm not a big fan.

So that leaves me with Alvarez and Fletcher.  Alvarez is backed by the San Diego Labor Council, the San Diego County Democratic Party, and a fair number of people I absolutely respect.  He's somewhat soft-spoken, and a dyed in wool progressive.  So if there is someone who will carry Filner's vision of San Diego forward (minus the disgusting sexual harassment, of course), Alvarez is the guy.  But. . .Alvarez leaves me flat.  Plus, he's younger than me by several years.  Ugh. Me old.

Fletcher, on the other hand, doesn't leave anyone flat.  Everyone is running independent expenditures against him, and he's peppy.  He fits into the Cory Booker mold of saving people, or talking them off bridges and stuff.  In short, he looks like a mayor.  And that's why the Republican Party is pumping money into this race - Nathan Fletcher, if elected mayor, doesn't stop there.  He becomes Senator Fletcher, Governor Fletcher, maybe even President.  The guy is a star, no doubt.  And the lynchpin of his future success will be what he does as San Diego's mayor.

But. . .Fletcher's been a Democrat for less than a year.  Before that, he was a Republican, and worked for terrible people like Duke Cunningham (who wasn't just awful because he accepted bribes, but was generally an awful person).  So, I don't know how deeply his progressivism goes. Fletcher is also younger than me, but not quite as much.  Ugh. Me old.

2) Toronto's Mayor Is AWESOME!!!

In my lifetime there have been two mayors caught on camera smoking crack - Marion Berry and Rob Ford.  Until recently, I couldn't think of a bigger downfall than Berry's, who explained his crack smoking with the following timeless phrase, "Bitch set me up!" But Rob Ford took the cake when he explained that while he did smoke crack, he did so when he was in a drunken stupor, so its all good. Never before has anyone explained away crack usage through alcoholism.  I. . .it. . .amazing.  Just AMAZING.  We're definitely at the stage where people from Toronto are so used to being asked about their mayor that they simply say, "yes, I know, my mayor's a crackhead," to everyone they meet.  I feel for you guys.

3) Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin:

Like a fair number of sports fans, I've been following the saga of Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin.  Obviously, this is a complicated story and there are a fair number of things we don't know. We think we know that the Miami coaches told Incognito to "toughen" up Jonathan Martin, a youngish left tackle for the Miami Dolphins. We know that Incognito extorted $15,000 from Martin to pay for a trip to Las Vegas that Martin didn't go to.  We know that Incognito left a series of voicemails that threatened violence against Martin and his family, that used the "n" word, and that the harassment continued beyond Martin's rookie year, and was so bad that Martin up and left the team.  We also know that the Dolphins suspended Incognito from the team indefinitely. We also know that the Dolphins' players are rushing to Incognito's defense, not Martin's, and that Dolphins' GM believes Martin should have violently attacked Incognito in response to the harassment.

So, I have a couple of thoughts. If the Dolphins' GM really thinks that way, he's an idiot.  If Martin physically attacked Incognito, does Jeff Ireland really think that Incognito would take it?  Or maybe, the two THREE HUNDRED POUND LINEMAN MIGHT GET INTO A FIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOCKER ROOM?  Other players would jump in to break up the fight, between the nice guy who snapped (Martin), and the overall psycho (Incognito).  Think there might be injuries, maybe? What if Ryan Tannehill jumped in, and broke his throwing shoulder? Is that the outcome you are hoping for Jeff Ireland?  You dipshit.

Second, I can understand why the team is backing Incognito over Martin - the culture of the team is for older, "tougher" players to harass younger players.  Rookies have to pay for dinners and other things of older players.  Incognito was fulfilling the role the team wanted him to play.  Martin's failure was that he reacted responsibly, but outside the team's norms.

Thirdly, banning "hazing" in the NFL isn't going to solve a problem like this.  All groups need rites of passage - things that new people must do before they are fully accepted into the group.  And rookie hazing is part of that rite of passage.  But the problem is that the ritual aspect of the rite has been stripped away, and all that is left is unfocused harassment of younger players because there are no norms that both the older player and the younger player can be expected to adhere to. And that's what leads to the abuses that you see here.

And there is no question that there were abuses. Despite Incognito's alleged "honorary black man" status, he verbally, and perhaps physically attacked Martin.  His use of the "n" word wasn't meant as playful banter, it was meant as a threat. It was used the way that the "n" word was originally intended to mean - that Martin was less than human, and who can be killed at any time.  Also keep in mind that Martin WAS NOT A ROOKIE.  His time to be harassed was supposed to be over.  So, in that context, I respect Martin for getting out of the situation, and shame on the Dolphins for letting it happen. If I were the owner, I'd fire the coaching staff and my GM over this embarrassment.

Thoughts On Healthcare (Again), And Other Topics

Once again, another episode of random thoughts blogging, which always shows up when I haven't blogged in awhile for a variety of reasons, and end up with a more than a few blog posts in mind (but am too lazy to post multiple times).  So here goes:

Rancid Horse Anus:

Now, you may not know what the words "rancid horse anus" has to do with health care, but bear with me.  Currently, there is a kerfuffle du jour over the Affordable Care Act is over the fact that some health insurance plans were cancelled as a result of the new law.  Now, keep in mind these health care plans were substandard, and don't provide coverage for preventative care and prescription drugs, but some people actually liked their health care plans.

Additionally, people are upset because Obama told them last year that if they like the health care plan they have, they can keep it under this law.  But that assertion was based on a couple of assumptions, not least of which is that people wouldn't want to buy substandard health insurance if they didn't have to, just like people wouldn't want to buy rancid horse anus to eat if they don't have to.

Just as people are willing to eat rancid horse anus (because, I'm assuming, its a filling meal and has subtle barnyard aromas), some people are willing to buy crappy insurance.  But just because they are willing to do so, or even want to do so, preventing the purchase of such crappy insurance (or rancid horse anus*) is probably a good thing because in both cases, the purchaser will get very sick.

In the case of the crappy insurance buyer, one of two things will happen when said person gets sick - either the buyer is unable to afford health care, or the buyer will buy better insurance so that his new insurance coverage will cover him.  In either instance, we as a society are screwed.  If the crappy insurance buyer stiffs his doctors, they will proceed to raise their prices to get the money the buyer stiffed them from the rest of us.  If the buyer buys better insurance, that will raise the costs for the insurance company, which will lead to higher premiums.  And either way, we as a society, end up subsidizing the crappy insurance buyer.

So, by making sure that every insurance plan is not crappy, the hope is that we avoid things that raise medical costs or insurance rates.

*In case you were wondering, I came up with the term "rancid horse anus" from my descriptor of the Chargers' play during the Norv Turner years.  Actually, the term I used was rancid monkey anus, which I changed here because I'd assume that a monkey anus would be much smaller than a horse anus.

The Passing of Lou Reed:

Like a lot of people, I found myself somewhat shaken by the passing of Lou Reed this past Sunday. There has been a lot said about Lou Reed, that he was a bit of an asshole and a musical genius, and that is probably true (especially the musical genius part).  For me, "The Velvet Underground and Nico" album has been a part of my music collection since college.  They didn't, as Brian Eno once claimed, inspire me to form my own band, but that was because I formed a band well before I heard of them.  WOO! EDC!!!!

With that said, listening to the Velvet Underground was my entrance into rock as art.  Or put another way, everyone loves music and is into music.  But there are some people who's love of music is well beyond their friends, who take music very seriously.  And if those people are rock fans, they own a Velvet Underground album (or four).

But Lou Reed was more than just a rock star, he was the guy who sang about transvestites and doing heroin in explicit terms back in the 1960's.  Now, I don't use drugs outside of caffeine and alcohol, but "Heroin" is probably my favorite VU song.  Like Burroughs, Ginsberg, and the Beat Poets, Reed was a guide through worlds that my suburban, white, heterosexual ass will never know.   And that's a good thing, because hearing all voices is important. Neil Gaiman's obituary of Lou Reed is especially poignant on this point.  Go Read it.

Lastly, if you've never heard of Lou Reed or heard his music, go search it out.  Its really, really good.

On Other Passings:

I don't like really dwelling on personal things on this blog.  Its supposed to be about conversations, viewpoints, and the like, and not really about my personal life.  But I would be an asshole to not mention the passing of my last surviving grandparent.

Of all of my grandparents, she was the one I knew the most, and her funeral was an emotional one for me.  My grandmother was, as much as my mother is, a force of nature as much as she was a person.  She raised five children, four of which were her own, while working as a nurse at a time when women were not expected (or sometimes allowed) to work outside the home.  She was also a huge, huge partisan (a Republican!) who's force of will lead her husband to hide his Democratic leading tendencies (he was a Union guy) from the world.  And that's how I will remember her, not just as a person, but as a presence of will.  It is my hope that if I ever have a daughter, that she will have the same ferocity of spirit.

Goodbye Grandma.

Contemplating the Shutdown

In some ways, its funny how life operates.  Just as the government started its shutdown yesterday, so too did my firm shutter its doors.  Of course, my firm simply moved from our modernist digs Downtown (that were way, way, way too big for us*) to a Victorian house in Little Italy.**  Of course, we turned back on the phones, got the internet up and running, etc., and we are almost back in business (absent our paralegal, who's computer was dropped by the movers).  Sure we are still sorting a few things, but we are almost back to full operating capacity.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the federal government.  Its still closed(ish) and by all accounts, Congress isn't going to pass anything any time soon.  So I wonder, what gives?  Now yes, I am aware of gerrymandering creating a rump of Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen who come from districts where Obama lost by an average of 40 points (he won by 4 points nationwide), but gerrymandering has been part of American politics from the very beginning.  Heck, the term gerrymander came from a newspaper in 1812.  Now, is it more prevalent now than ever before? In some states, certainly.

Is it the egregious unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare)? It may be a contributing factor, but I don't think its the main factor.  I do think Republicans overstate its unpopularity because they don't take into account the fact that a number of Democrats oppose the law because it isn't single payer.  If you take a look at the poll I just linked to, you'll notice that the ACA does worse among self-described Democrats (58% approval) than it does among Democratic-leaning independents (68%). This shouldn't be a huge surprise, because after all, ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. And its not the huge government run health care plan that most people assume it is - most people are going to have private insurance through their employer, just as they always have.

Additionally, there are lots of bills passed by previous Administrations that haven't been liked by Congress, and none of those ever resulted in a government shutdown. Instead, Congress quietly chipped away at those programs.

In the past 20 years there have been just two government shutdowns - in 1995 and today.  In both instances you have a Democratic President and a Republican House.  And here's where they also are similar - in both instances there were a large number of Republicans who did not recognize the legitimacy of the President.  Remember Clinton was elected in 1992 with a plurality of the vote - he got 43% to George H.W. Bush's 37% (and Perot's 19%).  Since Clinton didn't get a majority, and Republicans thought he was a slime ball (Slick Willy anyone), they didn't respect him.

With Obama, the same thing applies. There are Republicans that believe that armed rebellion may be necessary, that Obama has a secret plan to take away guns, and that Obama was born in Kenya.  These individuals, in their gerrymandered districts, go out and elect morons.  Or, as I like to say, the dipshit caucus.

But its more than that.  The whole right-wing infrastructure is based upon gullibility of Republican voters.  People watch right-wing television, and are flooded with commercials convincing them to buy gold at ridiculous prices. Or buy AK-47s and ammo, or any number of craziness.  It needs people like Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert to advocate any number of ridiculous things which charges up the electorate and gets them to spend money.  Notice that televangelism - so-called preachers on television getting people to give money they don't have so that the preacher could buy a cathedral - isn't all that big anymore? That's because televangelists all followed Pat Robertson to the much more lucrative game of conservative politics.

In that kind of charged environment, there is no room for compromise.  Obamacare is the worst thing ever, and there will be death panels, and abortions and unspeakable horrors that come from affordable health insurance.  There's no way to back down from that.  People who don't support the extremes are naturally enemies.  And those enemies get primaried.

Here's the last thing though - the rubes aren't the majority of the American people, or even the majority of Republicans, they are the plurality.  Most Republicans, even Congressional Republicans know that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States.  They want to move on, and would move on, except they are afraid of losing their seats (*cough*John Boehner*cough*).  Even long-time conservatives are amazed at the developments.

Now normally, this is where the Democrats would cave.  But I don't think that will happen.  For one, the 2010 elections, and the subsequent redistricting pretty much eliminated the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats, who would be the ones pushing for some kind of compromise.  By the way, the Democrats have already compromised by agreeing to the sequestration funding in the CIR.  For another, they see weakness on the Republican side.  And lastly, there is some ego involved - there's no way they are going to get rolled by the dipshit caucus, especially since Boehner has out and out said that the House Republicans are going to pull the same shit with the debt ceiling.

Sadly, I think we are in for a drawn-out constitutional crisis unless something major happens.  And by major, I mean 20 Republicans break from the House Leadership, and maybe form a new political party.

*We got a good deal moving in, and were renting around 4,000 sq. ft., and could have put a bocce ball court in the middle of the office and be affected in the slightest.

**I'm digging my new office - its seemingly more intimate and bigger than my old office.

An Open Letter to Members of the San Diego Democratic Central Committee

Hello Fellow Democrats,

Tonight you will get to make a choice to endorse a candidate for San Diego Mayor.  Choose correctly, and you can turn this election into a win-win for Democrats, progressives, and other left-leaning types. Choose badly and we can end up with Kevin Falconer as our mayor.  Ick.  And here's the choice you should make - endorse no one.

Now before I explain my reasoning, let me first give you a few bonafides.  I used to serve on the Central Committee, and also served on the Executive Committee for the San Diego County Democratic Party, while also serving as the President of the San Diego County Young Democrats.  Hell, I served with the three former chairs of the Party - Kennan, Bob, and Maureen - while I was on the Executive Committee.  While I am no longer as active as I used to be (such is the practice of law), I am still a Democrat in good standing, and I think this blog speaks for itself.

Let me also say this - I don't have a dog in this fight.  I barely know Fletcher or Alvarez, but know people who do, and they highly of both. I supported Aguirre for City Attorney, and loved his bulldozer mentality in City Hall, along with his stirring speeches at during our Central Committee meetings. So, really, I'd be happy with any of these men as Mayor (though I would've preferred Toni).

So, this letter isn't about picking one candidate or another, its about being smart. And right now, the smart play is to not endorse anyone. Here's why - as long as you do not endorse any candidate in this race, Alvarez and Fletcher (especially Fletcher) will go from Democratic club to Democratic club vying for endorsements.  In the process, Fletcher will be pulled further and further to the left.  This isn't just because he will be fighting for endorsements, but because he will spend more and more time talking to progressives, listening to them, and answering their questions.  He will develop greater connections to the Democratic Party and to progressive groups.  Alvarez, meanwhile, will get the lion's share of these endorsements.  He's a strong progressive, he's smart, and well-liked.  Even where he doesn't win, the competition for endorsements will increase his name ID.

In short, forcing both of these candidates to vie for Democratic club endorsements will strengthen both candidates in areas of weakness.  Alvarez increases his name ID, and Fletcher becomes more and more involved in the Party he joined a few months ago.  This doesn't happen if you endorse either candidate.

By the way, about Fletcher's conversion. Before we hold Fletcher's recent conversion from Republican to Independent to Democrat against him, let's remember that his conversion was a huge coup for us. Fletcher was a rising star of the Republican Party until recently. Let's remember that he's backed by Lorena Gonzalez, the most successful Labor leader we've had in San Diego in a long time.  Let's remember that we poached with an eye towards his future run for public office and that Fletcher now is the frontrunner in the race.

What you should absolutely not do is endorse either candidate (or Aguirre).  If you endorse Fletcher (he is the frontrunner, after all), you piss off a good Democrat in Alvarez, and Fletcher can ignore Democrats in his run for mayor.  If you endorse Alvarez, you push Fletcher further to the middle, and we lose influence on a guy who could be mayor.  Also, remember that more likely than not, one of these guys will run against Falconer in the run-off.  So, we want both to be strong.

Now I know that you will be asked to endorse based on your principles, or based on your emotions, or based on connections, but you need to think strategically.  Both of these men - Alvarez and Fletcher - are strong candidates, and both represent the future of the San Diego Democratic Party.  Let's do what we can to build both of these guys up.  That way, we end up with 1 guy as mayor, and the other guy as a strong candidate for a higher office further down the line.  Its the smart play.

Sincerely,

Phat Jim

Labor Gets Trolled Again (?)

One of the most interesting aspects of the San Diego's mayoral special election is the existence of Nathan Fletcher.  Fletcher fit the mold of the socially liberal, fiscally moderate, San Diego Republican that has been kicking Democrats asses for decades (See Sanders, Jerry; See also Wilson, Pete).  Then hurricane DeMaio happened, and the San Diego GOP, which had avoided eats-its-young tendencies of the CA GOP, ate it young.  Rather than backing Fletcher, or taking no formal position in the primary, it endorsed DeMaio big-time.

That lead to Fletcher (and his supporters) leaving the Republican Party to become a decline-to-state. And it created an opportunity.  As I have said before, Fletcher is the classic little-ray-of-sunshine - he's everyone's friend, people who meet him instinctively trust him, and you end up agreeing with him.  Oh, and he is an ex-Marine (I know, I know, there is no such thing), in a military town. Fletcher was a guy on his way up.  If the Democrats could get Fletcher to become a Democrat, then they'd have a rockstar candidate in their back pocket.  Ultimately, that's what happened. Lorena Gonzalez, Jess Durfee, and even Bob Filner, started wooing Fletcher pretty much from the get-go.  Hell, I think they were planning this before the DeMaio endorsement.  Either way, they got their man, and planned to stash him away for a few years, let him build up his progressive ties and run him for something.*

Of course, the best laid plans of mice and men. . .Filner ends up being a HUGE perv, resigns after 9 months in office, and Fletcher jumped in the race for Mayor as a Democrat. And, given his general inclination to being mildly pro-government (he actually voted for the State of California to spend money, something Republicans in the State Assembly do not typically do), his support of LGBT rights, and a his pro-biking environmentalism(ish), Fletcher is probably a Democrat at heart.

But of course, Fletcher isn't the only Democrat in the race. David Alvarez has a longer record of progressivism, and generally thought of highly.  And so, the Labor Council is backing Alvarez. Or, rather, most of the unions in the Labor Council are supporting Alvarez, the rest are supporting Fletcher. In the meantime, Republican groups are attacking Fletcher because of his Republican past, and that he has "changed parties three times."  

This past has sparked an interparty fight within Labor and the Democratic Party.  The head of the local American Federation of Teachers (which represent Community College instructors), alleged that Lorena Gonzalez rigged the whole thing so that she could be an Assemblywoman. Nathan Fletcher's confidential Labor Council questionnaire was sent anonymously to create a minor shitstorm.

All of this reminds me, in part, of the recent District 4 campaign between Dwayne Crenshaw and Myrtle Cole.**  Labor backed Cole full-tilt, even running misleading attack ads on Crenshaw, because Republicans were sending out anti-Cole mailers.  As I noted then, Labor got trolled, and turned what should have been an easy election for them into a knock-down, drag-out fight.

And that's where I think we're headed in the San Diego's special election. This should be an easy election for Labor - Fletcher has the look of a frontrunner, and Alvarez, with mild union backing, could pull the race leftward, while at the same time raising his name identification.  Properly done, this campaign could, and should be a win-win for the Democratic Party, the Labor Council and the City of San Diego.  But, if the warfare continues, Fletcher will become more hostile to progressive groups, and we could end up with Falconer (the Republican), as mayor.

*By the way, Labor does this all the time because they have to. Republican candidates have, for the most part, deep donor pockets to pull from, and then use that money to gain traction. Progressive groups don't have that luxury, and need to have candidates who can hit the ground running.

**Cole's profiles in courage have thus far been stellar - during the campaign, she claimed that her opponent was a crackhead, practically admitted that the ad was false, and was the last City Councilmember to call on Filner to resign after the 16th or 17th woman came forward.  I hate to say I told you so, but. . .

Breaking Away From Politics

Since this blog is called Politics and Religion, and with national politics being depressing and all, I thought I would go with a religious post.  And so, naturally, I'm going to talk about Pope Francis. After all, he's all over the news and Andrew Sullivan's blog.

So as a progressive, what do I think about Pope Francis? Well, I have to admit that I was a bit wrong about him.  Initially, I thought that Francis was an extrovert in the style of Bill Clinton. Not in the womanizing kind of a way, but in the loving crowds kind of a way. Unlike Pope Benedict, Pope Francis seems to enjoy the politician aspect of being Pope.  He likes the crowds, enjoys mingling with people, and calls people on the phone (he apparently opens with, "Hello, this is the Pope.")  He also seems like he's not an asshole, buying a used car to drive around in and what not.

But what's interesting is that Francis' most recent interview, which has Andrew Sullivan practically twisting his nipples in delight, (you can thank me for the mental image later) is that Francis goes the opposite way.  According to Francis, he is a dick, and his dickishness comes from when he separates himself from regular people and the community.  So, he has to be engaged with the crowds and with the regular folk, lest his own dickishness comes out.  Oh, and his past dickishness lead people to think he's a conservative, which he says he isn't.

How liberal Francis actually is remains to be seen, but there's something refreshing about a guy in power who knows his own weaknesses and owns up to them. Every person has to come to grips with their own inner asshole, understand who that asshole is, and try to keep the asshole in the dark hole where he belongs. Its the kind of inner reflection that I would expect from a Jesuit.

At the same time, I hope that this kind of inner reflection and charisma will lead Pope Francis and the Catholic Church to more progressive ways, such as allowing priests to marry, allowing women to be priests, and opening up the rules on contraception. I won't hold my breath on abortion, though. I also hope to see a Catholic Church more focused on poverty, union membership, and ending war - things that the Church gave up when it decided to fight the culture wars. And, of course, I hope that Pope Francis can help the Church reconcile itself with past, horrific, child abuse.  I don't know if that's possible, but I am more hopeful with Francis than I ever was with Benedict.

The Race to Replace Bob - Looking at the Contenders

With Bob   having finally resigned, and the special election heating up, I think we should look at contenders for the Mayor's race.  But before we do, we have to consider what makes a candidate viable.  A politician is unlike any other type of job because politicians are supposed to be able to gain and wield support of other people (and interest groups) because without such support, politicians can't pass legislation, and can't effectively govern (social contract and all that).  For a candidate, this kind of support comes in two basic forms - money and energy.  

While money is self-explanatory, energy is somewhat more complicated. Energy can mean the level of excitement a candidate brings when giving speeches, or the number of endorsements a candidate brings in.  Good candidates can harness that energy into grassroots campaigning, which, in turn, generates votes more effectively than any other form of campaigning.  Seriously, when I first started working on campaigns, I thought it would be all TV commercials and speeches (a la "The Candidate").  Instead, its walking door-to-door, followed up by direct mail, followed up by telephone calls.  It is mind-numbing, exhausting work, but it works.

Here's the interesting part about money and energy - in every campaign, there is a limited amount of either.  Generally, its the same people who give money to campaigns, and the same people who volunteer in campaigns. While Obama blew everything out of whack by getting more people involved, a municipal city election such as this is going to have limited money and energy.  So, certain candidates (and you will see this below), are going to take money and energy away from other candidates. 

The Contenders

Kevin Falconer (R): A couple of weeks ago, the various right of center types came together to find out who their candidate was going to be. As a result, Kevin Falconer stepped in to run and Carl DeMaio* and Ron Roberts (both Republicans) stepped out. As a result all the conservative money that backed DeMaio in the last race is going towards Falconer.  So, he'll get money.  But, will he have any energy? I'm not sure. Thus far, his main legislative accomplishment was banning booze from San Diego's beaches.  Beyond that, I don't know much about him, except that he lost to Michael Zucchet for his Council seat, and then when Zucchet was wrongfully forced to resign, Falconer beat none other than Lorena Gonzalez in the Special Election.  

*By the way, I think that Filner might have held onto office as long as he did to screw over DeMaio.  If Filner resigned in July, the special election probably would take place sometime in October, with the run-off in January.  By waiting until the end of August, Filner made sure the special election occurred later (November/February), and that didn't give DeMaio enough time to run for Mayor and turn around and run for Congress if he lost.

Nathan Fletcher (D-ish): As I tell most people, Fletcher is a little ray of sunshine. And I mean that in non-sarcastically.  He's one of those types who is genuine, charming, and appears to be a great guy. Little wonder that Fletcher had a cabal of fairly well-connected supporters join him in leaving the Republican party.  And they are going to keep supporting him. That's why Fletcher the independent was the number 1 recruitment target of the San Diego Democratic Party (among others).  He fits in a long line of high level candidates San Diego Labor stashes away - Mike Zucchet, Lorena Gonzalez, etc - and the people who dealt with him in the past, absolutely love him.  Of all the candidates, he has the most energy in this race.  Add to that the money lining his campaign coffers, and Fletcher is a serious, serious candidate.  

His one weakness is the matter of timing.  Had Filner lasted a complete term, Fletcher would have had a full four years of being a Democrat under his belt, and made more inroads with the Progressive left. So, Labor has been split in supporting him.  

With that said, Fletcher is way, way out of the gate already.  He has a website, volunteers to walk door-to-door for him. He probably has a consultant, and almost certainly has letterhead.  Not only is he gathering energy, he's using it effectively, and doing it before everyone else.  This is a big advantage and shows how much energy Fletcher has already.

David Alvarez (D): The City Councilmember from San Diego's southern-most district is the progressive that a lot of lefties were hoping for. Here's the thing - I know next to nothing about David Alvarez. I do know that he beat back the South Bay political machine that elected the last three City Councilmembers from his District, and he did so by being a strong progressive.  He's been backed by the San Diego Labor Council (with the exception of the SD Police, Firefighters, Municipal Employees and Lifeguards, all of whom support Fletcher), and will probably be supported by a fair number of other progressive organizations.  Since he has such strong support, he will be a player, but unless he gets his grassroots operation up and running now, he will have a lot of trouble becoming mayor.  That said, Alvarez may be running to raise his profile. 

Mike Aguirre (D): Aguirre is a wild card. As the former City Attorney (who lost to Jan Goldsmith in 2008), Mike was the wrecking ball of City politics, who did a lot of good things, but mostly pissed people off.  He's sort of like Filner, but without the good constituent relations and awful treatment of women.  Now normally Aguirre would be deemed a minor candidate but for one very important detail - Mike is independently wealthy.  He can self-fund his campaign.  As a result, he doesn't need San Diego Labor, or anyone to run, and it makes him a player.  He also fits into the ass-kicking reformer that San Diegans wanted when they picked DeMaio and Filner as their candidates for Mayor in 2012.  The only real issue with Mike is whether or not he can harness the energy that his money creates for him.  

Lori Saldana (D): Here's the thing about Lori - when she first ran for State Assembly, she was the 3rd choice of the powers that be.  The first two choices - Vince Hall and Heidi von Szeliski - ran such a negative and relentless campaign that they killed each other's chances, and pushed Lori to the forefront. In other words, she was the accidental State Assemblymember.  That said, Lori was smart, and positioned herself well in that campaign.  In this campaign, however, I don't see how she gains any traction.  All the progressive liberal types are going to back Alvarez (who has the benefit of not endorsing Filner while knowing that he harassed several women, unlike Lori), and all the other Dems are going to back Fletcher.  So, I suspect that Lori will mirror her original Assembly campaign and hope she positions herself correctly, which she won't.

So, with all that said, we're in for an interesting race ahead.

Filner Post-Mortem

So we're all aware that Bob Filner finally resigned right?  Good.  Whether it was my egregiously profane open letter, or the fact that there were a few people seen sharpening pitchforks outside of the City Concourse, Filner finally decided to resign, effective tomorrow.  For the past week, I've been thinking about what to say about all of this, well, I think we need to clear up a few things.

1. Bob Filner's Fall Was All About His Behavior Towards Women

Despite all the talk about lynch mobs, the reason Filner had to resign was due to his treatment of a large number of women.  For the most part, his behavior was merely disgusting.  In the case of the two sexual abuse survivors (who I discussed in my open letter), it was very disgusting.  In the case of Irene McCormick and Peggy Shannon, his behavior crossed into full-blown sexual harassment.  Now, there are those who think that Filner deserved due process regarding sexual harassment charges.  And, while he will, its safe to say that 18 women would all make up stories of essentially the same behavior is highly unlikely.  Especially when many of these women come from Democratic politics.

2. The Settlement Hometowned Gloria Allred

Under the terms of the resignation settlement, the City pays for the legal fees associated with defending against the McCormick litigation, and covers Filner's independent counsel's legal fees up to $98,000. Now, given that Allred was at the mediation, the City could've settled the McCormick litigation right then and there.  It didn't, and its because Allred is reportedly seeking damages in excess of $1 million.  Instead, Filner and the City teamed up to fight the litigation.  

With that said, you might wonder whether McCormick and Allred are better off taking their chances with a jury.  After all, we know Filner did what he did.  But, there are a couple of problems here - 1. McCormick worked for the City at a steep discount, and can probably go back to earning a heck of a lot more money working elsewhere.  So, there isn't any economic damages. 2. The only damages would fall into the noneconomic category - emotional distress damages and punitive damages - and San Diego juries tend to be stingy.  Add to that the fact that Allred now has to litigate the case, increasing her costs, while removing her biggest pressure point (Filner's personal legal fees), and you can see why Allred tried to kill the settlement last week.

By the way, of all the women who have come forward, Peggy Shannon probably has the best claim. Unlike McCormick, she isn't someone the local media would recognize, and Filner simply terrorized the poor woman, literally forcing her to deal with his sexual advances every day she went to work.  I could see a local jury dropping a $1 million verdict on Filner if Shannon sued, but I'm pretty sure McCormick won't see anywhere near that kind of money.

3. Despite What Lori Saldana Says, Nobody in the San Diego Democratic Party Knew That Bob Filner Sexually Harassed Anyone

In July, former State Assemblymember Lori Saldana claimed she told the San Diego Democratic Party Leadership that some women had come to her and told her that Filner had harassed them.  And I know that a lot of people have said that because of this, the Democratic Party excused Bob Filner's misdeeds. 

That's simply not the case.  Instead, the Party, through Jess Durfee (the Party Chairman) asked Filner about the allegations, and Filner denied them.  Durfee asked Saldana to have the women come and talk to him, and none of them did.  Now, keep in mind that Durfee and Saldana had conflicts in the past what you see is someone receiving nonspecific allegations about "harassment" from someone he didn't fully trust.  Also throw into that equation that Filner was known to be a terrible boss, and you can understand where he's coming from.

Lastly, and this is a key point, Filner had to be the last person Durfee expected to harass anyone. As Alex Roth carefully documents in his article, Filner was a misanthrope who barely knew the names of staffers, much less whether they were married or had kids.  I've seen Filner at social functions, and except for when he was on stage, the best description of his behavior was "awkward."  He wasn't a Bill Clinton, everyone-must-love-me type. 

Oh, and I should note, that in an act of political cowardice, Lori Saldana endorsed Filner for mayor, even though she knew he was a sexual predator.  Way to go Lori!

4. I Get the Feeling that Fletcher Has This Special Election In His Pocket

Beating out everyone to the starting gate on the Special Election was Nathan Fletcher, recently minted Democrat, who left the Republican Party when DeMaio outmaneuvered him for the GOP nod for Mayor in the last election.  While there's a lot that can be said about Fletcher, people who know him, including Lorena Gonzalez (former head of the San Diego Labor Council, and future Speaker of the Assembly), really, really like him. He seems to be the charismatic, "little ray of sunshine" type that San Diego voters love.  He already has the backing of the San Diego Firefighters, and will probably have the backing of all the other unions in short order.

Meanwhile, potential candidates like Carl DeMaio have their own issues (I'm not linking to the story about DeMaio allegedly masturbating in the men's room. Google it people), have decided not to run (Kehoe, Atkins), or are still deciding (Gloria, Falconer).  

Here's the thing - people elected Filner because they wanted someone from outside of City politics, but who was somewhat progressive.  Local Dems may be hurt by their association with Filner, but Fletcher wasn't part of the Democratic Party until recently.  Now, his past as a Republican will hurt him with Filner's diehard supporters (he clearly didn't expect Filner to blow-out this soon), but I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate.

5. DeMaio Is Still Very Odd

As the Filner harassment scandal unfolded, I heard about DeMaio's alleged bathroom antics.  From what I understand, Hueso didn't want to go on the record about it, and the local media dropped the story, because, ewwwwwww.  Now, it is possible that this is true (though why he didn't use the stall, I have no idea), or that DeMaio was simply shaking vigorously after peeing, or that Hueso made the whole thing up.  It is a funny story, but to take it to the extreme, like the author in this piece, is to be more than slightly homophobic - calling the gay guy a pervert.

But with that said, let's keep in mind that a majority of voters picked Filner over DeMaio even though Filner was well-known as the "Grand Canyon of Assholes" (no doubt, a moniker Filner prefers to whatever we call him now).  This decision had to do with DeMaio's economically extreme politics, his constant battle with the truth, and well, he's a weird guy.  He got into the run-off in large part to years of careful planning, which he turned over to run for Congress.

Now for awhile, I thought that DeMaio would not run for Mayor in a Special, because he already lost that race, and Congress would be a better fit for him (more policy, less executive stuff).  But he did put years of his life into that race, and with the current timetable, he could run for Mayor, lose, and still run for Congress.  It would be tight, but he could do it.  But he has to wonder how he would fare against Fletcher, the centrist, in this race.  The fact that he hasn't jumped into the race already shows that he's concerned.

 

An Open Letter to Bob Filner (NSFW)

Dear Mayor Filner,

I write this letter not in an attempt to ask you to resign (which we both know you will never do), but to let you know that I, Phat Jim, former San Diego County Democratic Party Central Committee Member, former Publications Director of the San Diego County Democratic Party, Former Member of the California Democratic Party Central Committee, former President of the San Diego County Young Democrats, former Regional Director of the California Young Democrats, am done with you.  Whether you resign, or you are recalled, I don't really care.  I will happily sign the recall petition, and happily vote to recall you.  And Bob (I don't actually care if you mind me calling you that), if that's how I feel, you are in a lot of trouble.

Bob, up until yesterday I thought you were an asshole and a creep.  I knew about you being an asshole, of course.  As someone who worked in or around politics since 1996 (I remember your "Peanuts" stand in the San Diego City Concourse during the 1996 RNC, brilliant, by the way), I knew plenty of now former staffers who winced at use of paperclips that were regular-sized.  Because you would flick them with said paperclips if they ever handed you a paper with them.  I also recall the revolving door of bright, young, and enthusiastic staffers who would last a few months before moving on to something other than politics.  Still, I thought, even if you were an asshole, you did good work in Congress.  Maybe, I thought, in this polarized world of politics, we Democrats need a few assholes too.

And then I learned you were a creep.  As far as the creepiness goes, well, we all know about that now, don't we?  Its become clear to me, Bob, that in sex you play the numbers game.  You hit on as many women as possible, as disgustingly as possible, in hopes that one of them will take you up on whatever you have to offer them. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the numbers game - every guy who comments on women from their car, or from a construction site, is playing the numbers game.  My friends told me of an old guy at a bar who's pick-up line was "Wanna Fuck?" and witnessed it working occasionally. It only needs to work once right?

With the knowledge that you were a creep and an asshole, I thought that you should resign. But then yesterday happened.  The latest allegations - that you disgustingly hit on two veterans who were VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, and that told a nurse that if she slept with you, you would help a MARINE GET THE MEDICAL ATTENTION SHE DESERVED FOR SERVING OUR COUNTRY.  You fucker.  You cheap, lousy, pathetic loser.  What the fuck were you thinking?  Did you think that these women would get over their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from being raped by sucking your cock?  Did you think that because you were in a position to help a Marine out, you could extract sexual favors?  You slimy piece of shit, how many others are there?

There are a few of my friends who are upset with you for not resigning because it forced all these women to come forward.  I don't feel that way.  If you had resigned back when Donna Frye first came out with these allegations, we would never have known what kind of pondscum you are.  Having them come forward is the best thing for these women and for the City of San Diego.

So Bob, we're done.  I don't remember if I gave money to you in the past, but if I did, I want it back.  If you see me on the street, don't come up to talk to me, or I'll spit in your face.

Go Fuck Yourself,

Phat Jim

What about Bob?

So, you know how I wanted a few details about the alleged sexual harassment claims against Bob Filner before I rendered any kind of decision?  And do you remember when I wondered whether the allegations were actually sexual harassment, or whether they were simply Filner being his typical, abusive boss self?

Yeah. . .well. . .it was a lot more than I thought.  The most recent allegations, as put forth by Filner's former communications director was that Filner was, in my words, a total and complete skeeze.  Oh, and her allegations were backed up. . .pretty much every single woman Bob Filner came into contact with during the past 30 years.  Not as witnesses, mind you, but as other victims.  Okay, I'm sort of joking here - thus far there are only seven eight known victims, with two other women kinda sorta out, but not really (the 8th woman will be announced in two hours on KPBS).  And oddly enough, Bob's taste in women tends to be. . .accomplished.  Like Rear Admiral in the Navy, Superintendent of San Diego City Schools, highly regarded journalist accomplished.  I'm sure he's sexually propositioned his interns like every other skeeze, but I have to hand it to the Mayor, he has no apparent shame.

In response to the myriad of allegations, the San Diego Democratic Party finally stepped forward and said, "Bob, its time to resign." Now, as someone who used to sit on the San Diego County Democratic Central Committee (which governs the San Diego County Democratic Party), I can tell you this is a big deal.  For almost twenty years, the San Diego County Democratic Party was pretty much useless.  It would act as a cheerleader, give out endorsements, but otherwise did nothing.  Only in recent years has the Party been able to actually take part in elections at any substantive level (through independent expenditures).  Yet throughout that entire time, Bob Filner was the only liberal beacon, the only liberal Democrat most locals could name, much less vote for.  And the old Party faithful know that.  That's why when Bob told everyone he was running for mayor, every other Democrat made way for him.

Of course, times have changed.  Democrats control a majority in the San Diego City Council.  They are in the State legislature and Congress.  The Party does not have the ability to sway elections as it never did before.  And so, its no surprise that the newer members of the Central Committee were the ones leading the charge to ask Filner to resign.

So, will Filner resign? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  He will go to "therapy" (btw, if there was a show called Douchebag Rehab with Drew Pinsky, I'd totally watch one or two episodes), but there's no way in hell he will resign.  Here's why:

1) Filner Will Fight to the Death:

As a young man, Bob Filner drove down to the South in an effort to register African American voters.  Its one of Filner's most personal, and powerful moments in his entire life.  He will talk about that time with anyone.  So, what happened on that trip? Bob got his ass-kicked and was thrown in jail (this was the South in the 1960's).  But he kept at it, and eventually he and other Freedom Riders helped the Civil Rights movement in their own way.

So, if you are keeping score at home, Bob's seminal life experience involved getting his ass kicked, going to jail and not giving up.  And this has carried over to other parts of his political life - when he was down 10 points to Juan Vargas in their second race against each other with only 1 week before election day, Bob didn't back down, he unleashed hell.  And if you ask anyone who's known Filner throughout the years, they'll tell you of other examples of Bob fighting to the bitter end.  That's who he is.

2) He's Learned to Never Resign:

What to Eliott Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, and Bob Livingston all have in common? All cheated on their wives, resigned, and then were never heard from again.  Well, they were heard from, but Weiner is about to go down in flames in the NYC mayor's race (or, come up short, if you will), and Spitzer is running for NYC Comptroller - a huge drop-off from Governor.  What do David Vitter, Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich have in common?  All cheated on their wives and DID NOT RESIGN.  Well, Newt did, but only after getting caught essentially taking a bribe.  But both Clinton and Vitter (who allegedly wore diapers in his escapades with prostitutes) never resigned, and got to stay in office.

Now as a politician who worked in D.C. for almost 30 years, Bob is absolutely certain to know this. The only way to rehabilitate your image is to fight to stay in office and remind everyone why they liked you in the first place.  Of course, unlike Clinton, Vitter, and Newt, Bob's base are the ones pushing for his resignation.  So there's no way he can weather the storm, but that doesn't mean he won't try.

3) He Has Nothing To Lose:

Imagine being Filner - he's 70, in what is probably the last political job he will ever have, and spent the past six months being a pretty good mayor.*  Now, normally, a politician in this situation would hear from his wife, or his kids, and they would tell him, "Bob, please don't embarrass us any more." But Bob isn't married, his kids probably don't talk to him, and his fiance' just dumped him.  All the allegations are pretty much out there, and so Bob has to think there is absolutely nothing left to lose.  Now, if he does resign, it will be because someone will release details of Bob doing something even worse than the current allegations out there.  Even then, I don't think that will happen.

Now you could ask, what about the lawsuits?  Wouldn't the loss of possibly millions of dollars get Bob to resign?  In a word, maybe.  Here's the odd thing about this case - despite the myriad of allegations, only Irene McCormick has, so far, sued for sexual harassment. All the other women met Bob at various events, or allege incidents that took place long enough ago that the statute of limitations has run.

As far as McCormick goes, her claims for harassment aren't necessarily drenched in gold either. When she worked for the City, she did so at a substantial decrease in her usual pay, and so, she can't allege economic damages for quitting due to Filner's skeeziness. She can ask for damages for emotional distress, and maybe punitive damages, but that's about it.  And San Diego juries are notoriously stingy on that kind of damage claim.  Case in point - I once worked on a case where a woman was under threat of rape for 4 months, was under treatment for PTSD (by the D.A.'s victim of crime fund), and got $50,000 in emotional distress damages.  Throw in the fact that the City may end up footing the bill (or not, depending), and you get the idea that Filner isn't exactly frightened of a lawsuit.

So, What Happens Next?

San Diego's City Charter does have a provision for such a circumstance - the people of San Diego can recall an elected official.  But, how the recall actually works is up for interpretation.  Technically, the people who want Filner out have to collect over 100,000 signatures in 30 days, which will spark the recall election.  People then vote on whether to recall Filner and who should replace him.  If not enough signatures are collected, no recall petition can be considered for six months.  Now, we don't know if multiple people can take out recall petitions at the same time.  This is key because some of Filner's supporters (and he still has a few), have taken out a recall petition before everyone else, and plan on sitting on the petition. So, if only one recall petition can be issued at a time, Filner is going to be with us for awhile.

Oh, and here's another lovely tidbit - under the terms of the Charter, everyone who votes against the recall has no say on who replaces Filner.  California's election code had a similar provision which was struck down as unconstitutional during the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.  No one bothered to fix the City Charter because. . .well, this is San Diego and YOLO.

Now, with all this said, some of you may be asking if this is the worst scandal in San Diego history - to which I would say, "Oh heavens, No." Its definitely in the top 5, but is it as far reaching as the Pension Scandal (when the New York Times called us "Enron by the Sea"), or as drawn out as the Rodger Hedgecock scandal?  In a word, no.  But it does continue the interesting times we have here in San Diego.

This is What I Get For Leaving Town. . .

Good gravy. . .I leave San Diego for five days and all the sudden we have former progressive supporters of Mayor Bob Filner calling for his resignation over allegations of sexual harassment.  What did he do? They won't say.  Who did he do it to? Will not disclose that.  The only thing we know is that some women talked to Donna Frye (former City Council Member, progressive activist, who almost became Mayor via write-in ballot, and who worked for Filner for a couple of months), and that she thought the allegations were solid.  Again, we have no idea what those allegations are, but Frye says that Filner should resign over them.  If I may be so bold as to ask. . .what the fuck?

If this had been anyone other than Donna Frye and Marco Gonzalez (the older brother of Lorena Gonzalez, fmr. head of the San Diego Labor Council and huge Bob Filner supporter) who alleged that sexual harassment occurred, but wouldn't say what was done to whom, I would have been nonplussed, to say the least.  After all, this is a Mayor who has been under fire from the long-time entrenched interests in San Diego.  But Donna isn't anyone, she's a progressive activist who has built up a lot of trust.

Also, its not as if Bob Filner isn't already known for being a total asshole.  In my years in politics and in the nonprofit world, I recall that Filner's office had constant turnover.  Every six months or so, I would see a new Filner rep at a meeting, and he/she would be young and energetic and gone within three months.  I have also heard stories about Filner's intense dislike for small paperclips (cue the former Filner staffers nodding slowly), and his volatile temper.  People hated working for him.  And then there's this:



Even this statement from Filner is vague.  Was this Filner being the abusive asshole boss he's known for being or was this something more?  And for me, the devil is always in the details.  As an attorney who has handled sexual harassment claims in the past, those details are absolutely important.  Even with Filner's admission that he acted badly doesn't tell me much beyond he's a nightmare to work for (and I knew that).

What I do know is that Filner's six months in office have been both incredibly contentious and successful.  He saved the City a bundle in office building rents, paying $1.35/sq. ft. when the going rate is $2.25.  We have a pension deal.  We have a five year labor agreement.  La Jolla Shores apparently doesn't smell like bird crap anymore.  Filner even shook down a developer to give more money to the City (for parks and such).  I don't think any of this (except the bird poop) would have been fixed with anyone but Filner.  And maybe that's because Filner is doing exactly what Filner has always done - been an asshole to everyone but his constituents.  As a constituent, I love his work for me but I'd never work for the guy.

So, what I guess I'm saying is that before I make any judgments, I'm going to need more information.  I don't need to know who, but I think all of San Diego needs to know what actually happened.

Same-Sex Marriage, Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court

Boy, oh boy, what an amazing few days in the Supreme Court.  Yesterday, I was completely and utterly devastated by Supreme Court's decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, and yet today, I am overjoyed by the Court's decisions to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and punt on Prop. 8.  So, from my legal perspective, I have a few things to say about the Prop. 8 case and the Voting Rights Act case.

1) How bad was the decision overturning the VRA?

Really, really bad.  Whether you like the policy of the decision or not, the VRA decision is awful, legally speaking.  Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and re-upped the VRA twice, the last time in 2008.  In 2008, only 33 legislators (out of a total of 535) voted against the Voting Rights Act.  Moreover, the Supreme Court previously held the VRA was constitutional.  Further, the VRA was passed by Congress based upon the powers granted to it by the 15th Amendment which specifically authorizes Congress to pass legislation to protect the right to vote.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, determined that the formula Congress used to require States to get pre-approval of voting rights changes from the Justice Department violated the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) because it used disparate treatment of various states.  Further, the Court determined that since the VRA prevented racial discrimination in voting, it doesn't need to exist anymore.

There are some very, very big problems with this.  First, when reading statutes, courts are supposed to read the newer statute as overruling the older one when they conflict.  The 10th Amendment was passed in the 1780's, the 15th Amendment was passed in the 1860's.  By rights, the 15th Amendment should always trump the 10th.  Also, the 15th Amendment was put in place specifically to protect African Americans living in Southern States.  The same states that the VRA required to get preapproval, and which are now attempting to curtail voting rights of minorities.

Worst of all, the Supreme Court's decision is based upon its view that racial discrimination is a thing of the past less than one year from the 2012 elections, which had some of the most blatant attempts to prevent minority voting.  The majority decided that its policy decision trumped the policy decision of both Congress and the President (who was George W. Bush, by the way).  That's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.  Oh, and the disparate treatment analysis under the 10th Amendment, which the majority relied upon, has never been argued before.  Until this decision, such an analysis did not exist.

2) Is the DOMA Opinion As Bad, Legally Speaking, As the VRA Opinion?

No, but its a good question that I came up with.  Lacking all sense of irony, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent on to the opinion overturning DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).  The majority held that under the 5th Amendment, Congress can't pass a law that denies equal treatment under the law.  Now, the 5th Amendment doesn't exactly require equal treatment by the Feds (unlike the 14th Amendment which requires the States to guarantee equal treatment), but there have been a fair number of decisions arguing the 5th does grant those rights.  As doctrines go, while its not enshrined in the Constitution, exactly, its fairly innocuous because we all pretty much want the Feds to treat people equally.

Additionally, and unlike the VRA case, there isn't a constitutional amendment that specifically allows Congress to define marriage.  Heck, before DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996, Federal law didn't define what does and does not constitute a marriage.  It left the whole thing to the states.  So defining marriage almost certainly violated the 10th Amendment (a lot more than the VRA), in addition to discriminating against same-sex couples without any rational basis.  Pretty much the only thing holding up DOMA was animus towards same-sex relationships.

3) What Happened, Exactly, With Prop. 8?

The Supreme Court kicked the case because it held that the supporters of Prop. 8 did not have standing.  Now, standing is a hard concept for a lot of people, attorneys included to understand fully.  Once you understand standing, you are treated like some kind of guru.  Anyway, standing is a concept that typically applies only in Federal Court (with some exceptions, such as California's Unfair Competition Law), and it relates to Article III of the Constitution.  Basically, it means that unless you are losing money, property, or freedom, from the bad stuff you are alleging, you can't sue.

Here, the procedural history will help shed a light on what standing means.  California passed Prop. 8, and the Plaintiffs sued California in Federal Court because their right to marry was taken away.  The State of California "defended" the lawsuit by essentially handing over the case to Prop. 8's supporters.  The Plaintiffs had standing because they were losing the right to marry, and the Defendant (California), had standing because the Federal government could force California to recognize same-sex marriages.  The Supporters of Prop. 8 then got their asses handed to them at trial.  Seriously, google Judge Walker's memorandum of decision, it represents an epic ass-kicking.

Anyway, California decided it had done its duty, and decided not to appeal the District Court's verdict (again EPIC. ASS. KICKING.). So the Supporters of Prop. 8 decided to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  So the question kicked in, do the supporters of Prop. 8 have standing to bring the appeal?  Under California law, they totally do, and the 9th Circuit decided to let the appeal go forward, and promptly ruled against the supporters of Prop. 8.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, looked at California's standing requirements and looked at the standing requirements under Article III, and by a 5-4 decision, determined that Supporters don't have a right to appeal the decision because they are not affected one way or another by same-sex marriage.  Yes, they may not like the decision, but no one is being forced into gay marriage.

4) So. . .Is That a Good Thing?

Mostly.  For one, the District Court's opinion (which was much stronger than the 9th Circuit's), stands, and Prop. 8 deemed unconstitutional.  There is a concern that this ruling could cause problems down the road because the California government may not defend initiatives it doesn't like in Federal Court.  Of course, that's why in California, there are specific standing provisions that allow proposition supporters to stand in the place of the State of California in Court.

5) But How Far Does the Prop. 8 Decision Reach?

It only applies to California, and technically, it only applies to the Plaintiffs who actually brought the lawsuit.  This lawsuit wasn't brought as a class action, or a representative action, so really, the judgment only applies to the people who brought the lawsuit.

6) So Same-Sex Couples Can't Get Married in California?

Well, that brings up an interesting point.  You see, Judge Walker determined that California has no rational basis in limiting marriage to opposite sex couples.  While that ruling is technically only related to actual Plaintiffs, the fact that California lost the case has a huge effect.  There are legal doctrines called "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel" that apply here.  What these doctrines say is that you don't get to relitigate a loss in a lawsuit.  You can appeal a decision, and even petition for a Supreme Court to review the decision, but once those appeals are done, you are done.

Since California unquestionably lost the Prop. 8 case for these Plaintiffs, it will now lose every Prop. 8 case brought almost automatically (the Plaintiff would have to write a motion), because it is prevented from arguing that it Prop. 8 is constitutional.  So, technically, if the State of California wanted to be jerk about it, it could try to prevent same-sex couples from getting married, only to get sued and lose time and time again. Since that no one likes to get their ass kicked, and attorneys are expensive, Gov. Brown and the rest of the State government has said, "fuck it" and will allow same-sex couples to get married.

So, while technically the Prop. 8 decision applies only to a couple of people, for all practical purposes it covers everyone in the State.

The Edward Snowden Question

If you haven't kept up with the last few posts, or with the news, there's a guy by the name of Edward Snowden who worked for an NSA contractor, and used that position to gather information about how the NSA spies on basically everyone.  He gave the information to Glenn Greenwald, and then fled to Hong Kong.  On Friday, the United States filed espionage charges against Snowden and he has since fled Hong Kong and is flying to parts unknown via Russa.  

The typical players of the MSM, naturally, are calling for the prosecution of Snowden and Greenwald for espionage.  Granted, these are the same people who supported the Iraq War and who have turned a blind eye to the war crimes of the past Administration (and yes, torture is a war crime).  These are the same journalists who base their entire lives on getting access from the powers that be.  Hopefully, they all go the way of Howard Kurtz and work for Fox some day.

That said, should Snowden be prosecuted for giving up state secrets?  Well, that's a somewhat complex issue.  Snowden's leaked two types of information to the world - how the U.S. spies on its citizenry, and how it spies on the rest of the world.  The first bit of information, how the U.S. spies on its citizenry, is information of phenomenal importance.  We, as Americans, have to be able to debate whether our government should spy on us.  But we can't do so if we don't know whether the government is spying on us, and how the government is spying on us.  This information may be embarrassing, but we need to know about it, even if, as in this case, the spying is authorized by law, and reviewed by a court.

The second type of information, how the U.S. spies on the rest of the world, is a different story altogether.  Of course the United States should engage in espionage on the international stage.  Simply put, we need intelligence to inform our policy-makers when they make momentous decisions.  Had the Bush Administration listened to the CIA, for instance, it would known that Hussein had no biological/chemical/nuclear weapons (of course, it didn't care, but that's beside the point).  When policy-makers make decisions on foreign policy blind, PEOPLE DIE.

So ultimately, I think if Snowden had stopped with giving up information on how the U.S. spies on the citizenry, he might have had a case for why he should not be prosecuted.  He would have performed the public service he claims he performed.  But instead, he blabbed about spying on foreign governments, which is unforgivable.

Lastly, I think the contractor shouldn't be let off the hook.  Snowden claims he took the job specifically to spy on the NSA.  That, my friends, is one hell of security breach and falls within the classic definition of a spy.  Booz Allen Hamilton (Snowden's employer) has some explaining to do.

More Thoughts on the NSA Snooping Leak

As I noted in yesterday's post, the whole NSA "scandal" came about because Edward Snowden, a high school dropout with Top Secret clearance, leaked thousands of pages of information to Glenn Greenwald, which was easy because he was an IT guy.  Oh, by the way, he had next to zero training in computers, and made over $120,000 per year.*

But aside from the fact that he leaked these documents, and from the fact that he apparently thinks Hong Kong will keep him safe from the U.S.**, Edward Snowden's identity should be a mere footnote in a much larger issue.  Namely, that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans, and the head of the NSA apparently lied to Congress about it.  In fact, to the extent that there is a scandal, its that it took the completely batshit insane act of probable treason by Edward Snowden for any of us to know it was going on.

And ultimately, I don't mind the NSA doing any of this, if, and only if, the following safeguards are put into place - either by executive order, or, and much better, by actual statutory law:

1) Any internet spying is done to either (a) prevent acts of violence against Americans because they are Americans to induce terror, or, (b) to catch those who have perpetrated acts of violence against Americans because they are Americans in an effort to terrorize the populace.

2) Any information gathered that does not have to do with terrorism will be destroyed and cannot be used for any purpose by the government of the United States, or any state government in any criminal or civil proceeding, except for the purpose of trying terrorists in criminal court, or allowing the victims of terrorist attacks to sue terrorists or their organizations.

3) Have a Court that oversees the NSA actually provide some oversight.  Currently, the FISA court, which oversees the NSA, has allowed the government to do whatever it wants 99.67% of the time.  Of the over 33,000 requests for a warrant, the FISA court turned down the government 11 times.  ELEVEN!  There has to be better oversight.

Now this is a short set of limitations, and I'm still pondering what else to add, but I think this would be a great place to start.  One thing that worries me is that its pretty easy to add more topics to the list of things we use the information for.  For instance, I'd be hard-pressed not to include child porn or human trafficking to 1).  But I do think that we can find some middle ground in this.

*My favorite part of this post will be that my fiance' will read the point about Edward Snowden twice her salary (she's a teacher), and blowing up.  Also, unless you are an IT guy, an engineer or a scientist, you definitely studied the wrong subjects in school.  Just sayin'.

**Actually, I think the Hong Kong thing is a ruse to throw the investigators off his track. Snowden has been a spook since 2007, at least, and rose up from security guard to IT guy/spook really fast.  I don't think he's dumb enough to think that China won't give him up.  If I had to bet, I'd say he's either in Ecuador or in route to Ecuador right now, probably on a container ship.  Then again, I may have watched too many spy movies.

Deep Thoughts on the NSA. . .

Via Twitter and a few trusted blogs, I've been following the NSA "scandals" of recent days, and I've been troubled to say the least.  There are a number of practical and not-so-practical issues the result from the recent disclosures to the world via Edward Snowden.

First, it should be noted that the recent revelations about what the National Security Agency has done can't really be described as a scandal.  The NSA performed searches of phone metadata (who you called, where you were when you called, and how long the phone call lasted), and internet data on a massive scale because current law lets the NSA do so.  Both the Federal judiciary and Congress have been briefed on these activities, and the judiciary specifically authorized the NSA to take part in these activities (as far as I can tell).  In other words, what we have here isn't so much a scandal as it is a policy choice that was enacted into law, and has been overseen by all branches of the government.  

But with all that said, the question remains whether the NSA should be able to snoop on individuals at this level.  Unfortunately, because the NSA's activities are necessarily secret, we as Americans can't debate them the way we would with any other policy decision.  So, in that context, what Snowden did was important.  We are now asking important questions about these programs.

So, where do I stand? I tend to have a different view of the Constitution than most - I don't think there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.  The Constitution's framing is all about who has what power, rather than who gets to find out who's doing what.  To that end, I think the Constitution grants individuals the right of self-sovereignty - the right to speak their minds, practice their own religion, write blogs and newspapers, be secure in their bodies, homes and belongings, and be free from interference unless the government has a good cause.  And in that context, what the NSA's collection of metadata from cell phones is important, but ultimately not interfering with people's lives.   

Where I do have a problem is with the collection of interpersonal communications on what appears to be a massive level.  Not because a lot of that information is secret - after all, the whole point of this blog, my Facebook account, and my Twitter feed is to broadcast my life - but rather, because, as an attorney, I have a duty to keep my communications with clients secret.  If the NSA is reading my emails, then how can I claim these emails are privileged communications?  Unfortunately, its a grey area, and I'm concerned.

Of equal importance is how the data is used.  What if the NSA, looking for terrorists, discovers a medical marijuana ring, or (much, much, more likely) a NCAA Tourney pool?  In either instance, the NSA would receive evidence of a federal crimes. Or, what if the NSA was able to determine who belongs to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?  Could an Administration use this information to maintain power?  Um, probably.  

So there needs to be a discussion and some clear ground rules as far as what the data can and can't be used for.  Ideally, it's used only when someone is planning to attack U.S. civilians, and otherwise destroyed.  Certainly, this kind of information is important, and might've prevented 9-11, but as I said, I'm concerned, but I'm also glad we are having the discussion.

Random Thoughts Blogging (Amy's Baking Co, Benghazi and More)

In the effort to unleash a few thoughts rattling through my head in the past few days, I thought it was high time to do a random thoughts post wherein I write about a few subjects instead my usual one long post.  So here goes:

Epic Internet Fail: In case you missed it, Amy's Baking Company had a few issues lately.  Hit the link and you will see what I can only call an epic public relations disaster.  After having Gordon Ramsey walk out on them during Kitchen Nightmares, the owners of said bakery went apparently went full-on crazy on their Facebook page, insulting customers and telling the kids at Reddit to bring it on.  I would link to one article, but honestly, the whole thing was crazy, and you can see the Google results for yourself. Now, the couple is saying they were hacked and did not go totally apeshit on their Facebook page.  I don't buy it, mostly because the couple has a history of going apeshit on Yelp reviewers who post bad reviews.

While this crazy episode continues, I should note that dealing with Yelpers through intimidation, or anger is definitely the wrong way to go.  A quick anecdote: about a year and a half ago, I had a cleaning service clean my apartment upon my moving out.  I found the service through Yelp, and it had 5 stars.  I paid $200 in cash to the service, and  received what I believed (and still believe) was substandard cleaning.  So, I wrote a review on Yelp detailing my issues with the company.  The head of the company responded by saying I was a liar, etc., and asked to "meet me in person."  This too was the wrong approach.  Instead, the right approach would have been to calmly explain his side of the story, and perhaps offer me a minor discount on a future cleaning.  Even if I didn't want the discount, other customers would see that he was reasonable.

Look, not everyone likes every product the same way.  We have different tastes in food, clothing, cars, etc.  That's why in a market economy there are different products to use.  So, not everyone will like your product, and some will express their opinion.  What the business owner has to do is make sure in that moment that he/she doesn't look like the asshole.

Benghazi: A few days ago, I tweeted that I didn't understand the whole hubbub about Benghazi.  Yes, there was an attack which killed four Americans.  The FBI investigated, and are still looking for the guys who did it.  Terrible stuff.  But I never understood the apparent "cover-up" involved with Benghazi.  I guess the argument was that the White House lied about the attacks immediately after the assault to make it seem less like a terrorist attack, and more like a spontaneous action.

Here's the problem with that argument: 1) a terrorist attack is an attack made on civilians to incite terror.  Attacking an embassy to damage American intelligence in the area is an act of war, not terrorism; 2) Nobody expects the first, second, or third reports out of any tragedy to be accurate, because nobody knows anything; 3) the thing worth covering up WAS THE ATTACK AND THE FOUR DEATHS, not whether the attack was "an act of terror" or a "terrorist act."  By the way, the recently released emails back up point number 2, as it indicates that the CIA, the Department of State and the White House were still trying to figure out what was going on.

The IRS Curfluffle: So, the IRS' Cincinnati office was targeting conservative and Tea Party groups in 2011.  The whole "scandal" reminds me of what a college professor once told us - the one thing that drives Presidents crazy is when a civil servant does something stupid that ends up biting the President in the ass.  This scandal is exactly that - these IRS employees are pretty far down on the totem pole - and the President can't fire them directly (normally a good thing, but a bad thing here).  The only guy he could fire, the Acting Director, actually was cleaning up the mess left by President Bush's appointee.  As I noted in a tweet that the U-T published (to my great ambivalence), this had the makings of a real scandal when the news first broke.  Now it doesn't.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (San Diego Labor Council style)

For my friends in places other than San Diego, I am sad to say that I am writing again about the San Diego City Council District 4 Special Election.  Sorry.  I promise that I'll go back to writing about other topics soon - I have a few thoughts on Benghazi coming up - but with the election coming up, I thought I'd mention this article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. . . .yes, its owner does insist on people calling him Papa. . . .yes, its as creepy as it sounds. . . .and, yes, it does believe that Playboy naming its playmate of the year is "breaking news" - but that's besides the point.  What is interesting is who's spending what.

In this race there are essentially four major players - Myrtle Cole, Dwayne Crenshaw (my friend), the San Diego Labor Council (known locally as "Labor"for short), and the Tea Party/Downtown Special Interests types.  Cole and Dwayne are the candidates, and find themselves in the midst of what is essentially a proxy war between Labor and Downtown.  As I wrote in an earlier response to an article in Voice of San Diego,* Labor is trying to buy the election, and Downtown is trying to fuck with Labor because it can.

The fundraising numbers that came out today bear out a lot of what I have said.  Dwayne, who has a great deal of support in the District, doubled Cole's fundraising numbers.  This is despite the fact that Cole has the explicit backing of Labor, and of the entire Democratic Party establishment, from the mayor on down.

On the independent expenditure side, the Tea Party/Downtown establishment types have spent $60,000, more or less, on the race.  In the meanwhile, Labor has spent $200,000 so far.  Labor HAS SPENT $200,000 SO FAR.  In a voter universe of around 20,000 people.  Against a guy who the local liberal alternative weekly, San Diego City Beat, deems to be the true progressive in the race.  In other words, Labor has really fucked up here.

Let's take a look at what Labor had going for it going into this race shall we: (1) District 4 is, and has always been, a strong Democratic District; (2) With a few notable exceptions, the candidates were Democrats, and generally pro-Labor; (3) The two candidates in the run-off were definitely pro-Labor.
So, what if Labor had, after spending $70,000 to get Cole into the run-off, decided to back off the race, and let Cole and Crenshaw battle it out on their own? Their best case scenario would have been Cole winning, with their worst case scenario would be Dwayne winning - but since Labor backed off after the primary, he isn't pissed at Labor, and goes back to his natural constituency (progressive Democrats).  This race should have been the definition of a win-win.

But of course, Labor didn't do that.  Instead, it got rope-a-doped into believing that Downtown actually wanted Dwayne in office, and spent over $200,000.  Much of that spending has been on negative mailers. And some of which (as I noted in a previous post) attack Dwayne receiving money as a result of what appears to be a meritorious discrimination lawsuit, equating the lawsuit with "taking money from the community," and mocking what was one of Dwayne's most painful personal experiences.  Do you think that, post-election, Dwayne is going to be chummy with Labor?  Do you think that the San Diego LGBT community, which has seen one of its leaders ravaged unfairly, are going to be as supportive of Labor in the upcoming years?

So here we are.  Instead of having options, Labor is painted into a corner.  It has to, HAS TO, spend big to destroy Dwayne.  In the meantime, Labor is slowly poisoning its connections with the LGBT community.  Oh, and because Labor has relatively big pockets, and don't shift their money around like most PAC's, Dwayne wouldn't be entirely crazy to sue for defamation, especially given the conservative bent of the local judiciary.  This ramifications of this race could hang around Labor's neck for years.

Again, I can't stress enough how badly Labor has fucked up here.  They should never have been in this position. EVER.  And ultimately, that's the strangest part of this race.  I know the guys at the Labor Council. I've worked with some of them back in my political days.  Heck, one of the guys at the Labor Council was Dwayne's campaign manager not so long ago.  Labor's head, Lorena Gonzalez, who's now running for the State Assembly, is a goddamn political superstar who should be Speaker of the Assembly any day now.**  But this is just fucked up, and I have to think someone over at Labor has to wonder how they got here.

*Damn, I still need to give Voice of San Diego money.

**Lorena, if you're reading this, and I don't think you are, this is your floor.  Anything less would be a disappointment.

Um Guys. . .Seriously. . .What Are You Thinking?

I guess all the hit pieces run by the Lincoln Club hit a nerve.  The Labor Council sent out a hit piece on Dwayne Crenshaw in District 4 (see my last few post for the background), attacking Dwayne for his tenure at the Coalition of Neighborhood Councils (hereinafter CNC), most likely referencing this article by Voice of San Diego.*

So, let's go to the facts as we know them.  Dwayne worked for the CNC as the Executive Director.  When he started, the CNC had 1 part-time employee and an operating budget of less than $50,000.  Under his leadership, the CNC employed 50 people full-time, and had an operating budget of over $1.5 million.  After complaints by several members community regarding Dwayne's sexual orientation apparently, the CNC fired Dwayne, and he promptly sued the CNC for wrongful termination.** Thereafter, the parties settled, Dwayne went to law school without the aid of student loans, didn't work for around 3 years, and was able to loan his campaign $20,000.  Oh, and CNC completely collapsed after Dwayne left.

In the hit piece, the Labor Council claims that Dwayne was fired for "mismanagement of funds."  This is a lie.  The CNC never stated any reason for Dwayne's firing whatsoever.***  The only explanation for Dwayne's firing comes from Dwayne himself, and he claimed he was fired for being gay.  Oh, and he received an unspecified sum as a result of the lawsuit.  It also claims that he "took money from the community," because he received money from the lawsuit, compensating him for lost wages as a result of being fired for being gay. Classy huh?

As with earlier efforts to equate generally bad politicking with homophobia, this particular hit piece is pretty tone-deaf, and maybe a bit homophobic itself.  Was Dwayne Crenshaw supposed to accept that he was fired from the CNC because he was gay?  Was he not supposed to fight discrimination?  More importantly, is the Labor Council really attacking Dwayne because he availed himself of the legal process, and well, won?  I guess the message the Labor Council wants to send to members of the community is that racism and homophobia are no big deal, and that anyone who stands up for himself or herself is a traitor to the community.  Quite frankly, that's a pretty shitty thing to say, and violates every principle the Labor Council is supposed to stand for.

Here's the thing - I know these guys.  The Labor Council is lead by good people, who care about their community.  But this hit piece is completely ridiculous.  Again, not only is it lying about the facts, but it tells every gay kid that standing up for himself makes him a traitor to his community.  Seriously, guys, what the fuck?

* I seriously need to give those guys some money.

**A quick lawyerly note - there is no cause of action for wrongful termination in the State of California, as California is a right to work state.  There are causes of action for discrimination in termination, which is a nearly impossible claim to prove.  To win, Dwayne would have had to prove the motivation of the CNC was to fire him for being gay.  But I digress.

***Quick note - on Twitter, Lorena Gonzalez and Evan McLaughlin (who are both on leave with the Labor Council), defended the piece, stating that there were allegations that Dwayne had misappropriated funds, and had been sued for the misappropriation.  This is also false.  The CNC countersued Dwayne when he filed his discrimination suit, but never alleged misappropriation of funds.   If anyone at the CNC believed that Dwayne stole from the CNC, not alleging misappropriation of funds in a cross-complaint (which is constitutionally protected from defamation), is bad lawyering unless the CNC didn't believe Dwayne had misappropriated any funds.  The only thing Lorena could point to was a case against the CNC itself regarding a school lunch program, which the CNC successfully defended.  Even there, the issue wasn't so much misappropriation of funds, but rather, initially poor management of the program, which was corrected in the Court's view.