Road Trip!

Good Morning Bloggers! I may not be writing about anything too complicated over the next few days seeing that I'm driving, hiking/camping and luxuriating up the beautiful California coast.

I stayed in Morro Bay in the central part of the state last night, and this morning I'm heading off to explore and enjoy Big Sur, Carmel, Monterey and San Francisco. Stops after that will include Sonoma (spas and vineyards after the hard hiking) and the redwoods of Northern California - or what I like to call Bigfoot country.

I do love my adopted state, especially exploring its natural beauty. I hope you guys have a great 4th of July week/weekend.

Happy 4th of July/Independence Day!

Wednesday's Rave - Michael

PS - I'm pleased to let the burglars know that I have a friend staying at my house. :)

Some Good News for a Change

Good Morning Readers! I have a rare RAVE to offer this morning as I compliment the Democrats and President Obama on passing the largest expansion of the wilderness system in 15 years. It's the Ominbus Public Land Management Act of 2009, and it's FANTASTIC!

The new law, approved in both the House and Senate and soon to be signed by President Obama, bestows the HIGHEST levels of federal protection to over 2 million acres of federal - relatively unspoiled - land throughout nine western states. It's FANTASTIC news!

The Bush Administration and the Republicans loved to claim environmental credentials while secretly giving mineral/mining, logging and energy development rights to their friends on millions of acres of federal land. They did set land (and sea) aside during their tenure, but they also provided access that led to the destruction of more virgin federal land than any administration in history.

Most environmentalists viewed Bush and the Republicans as the 'slumlords" of federal land policy. They were a disgrace. The environment, like so many issues, is another reason not to trust Republicans with government. The Obama Administration has been quietly reversing some of that damage, or at least trying their best.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did a good job of committing the federal government to some pretty abusive long-term contracts. WE THE PEOPLE will be screwed by their Republican cronies for DECADES to come.

Anyway, the new bill is incredible! The bill, soon to be a law, will set aside - and SERIOUSLY PROTECT - more wilderness then George W. Bush set aside during his entire eight year nightmare.

The bill is excellent in the way it protects wilderness areas adjacent to urban areas like Los Angeles where I live and enjoy our mountain vistas. Cities should have green belts filled with wildlife within a short ride. It's good for natural balance, beauty, and to offer something to future generations. It also restores rivers devastated by logging throughout the West.

Of course, in predictable fashion, a few bought-and-paid-for Republicans fought the bill, siding with the miners, loggers and oil companies (not to mention they ignored the issue over the past eight years). I especially loved the way Senators like McCain, McConnell, and Chambliss all voted no. Can we guess who their allies are? McCain loves his country houses, but I guess he only cares about the beauty near his own properties.

As always, my favorite California Senators were instrumental in setting aside the largest chunk of land, totalling approximately 700,000 acres. Idaho set aside 517,000, while Colorado took third with 316,000.

Utah, which has some of the most beautiful natural landscapes in the nation, fought the legislation. Their Republican delegation limited their exposure to 260,000, which is tiny compared to what should be protected there. Of course, it helped that oil and mineral companies lobbied heavily to keep pristine federal land there available for strip mines and drilling.

I guess I'm most excited because the bill protects lands that I hike and camp on regularly - yes, you've probably guessed I have a passion for wilderness. I've been exploring the wilderness areas outside of LA for almost 10 years now, and knew that most would be lost to developers if federal protections didn't arrive soon. So for me, this is a very happy day.

Thousands of acres filled with cougar, bear, coyote, and all varieties of natural things will be available for future generations. The new protections don't even allow them to build roads into most areas, which I think is the best part. Roads offer access to people who often abuse and destroy, and it's important to preserve as much as possible.

I realize that many of you will consider me a tree hugger or a hippie. No, I just believe that mankind is taking too much from this world. Why is it so wrong to want to preserve the best parts of our world? Why should I be ashamed because I want to preserve our purple mountains majesty? Trust me, in this day and age, they don't preserve themselves.

I'm very proud to want a better world. I would rather opt for less driving, less electricity, and less civilization, to preserve what is beautiful about this planet. The opposition needs to stop its quest to conquer the planet. Mankind cannot consume everything and survive. That is a recipe for disaster.

I'm proud of our elected Democratic leaders. They did a good thing, and deserve our thanks. They also set a good example, because we need to balance consumption with preservation before it's too late. Americans, especially wasteful Republicans, need to focus more on conservation and sustainability. We need more balance. I only hope our Republican friends realize it before it's too late.

Thursday's Political Rave - Michael

Tasers are Killing Unarmed Americans

Good Morning! I would like to remind people that potentially deadly tasers are killing thousands of unarmed Americans each year, and very few people are talking about it. It's a serious issue in American law enforcement. Tasers are not harmless tools of deterrence the way they're being marketed.

My last taser post was reprinted in the Chicago Sun-Times and circulated across multiple blogs. It is a serious issue that more Americans need to be aware of, despite our national support of law enforcement. To reiterate, TASERS CONTINUE TO KILL UNARMED PEOPLE and must be categorized as a weapon of last resort. It's clear that police should not be allowed to use them to control UNARMED American citizens.

A young man in San Jose, California died yesterday after being jolted with a taser. Local police report that he represents the sixth taser death since the department began using the stun guns in 2004. That represents a very high "accident" number for a small urban police force.

In his 20s, he was supposedly in a "struggle with two officers" when they tried to arrest him in the backyard of a home late Wednesday. "The struggle was very, very violent to get him into custody," said police spokesman Mike Sullivan. "Some time during the struggle, the officers did deploy a taser."

Officers don't know whether an individual has a heart condition, or taken drugs thus weakening their condition. A taser is always potentially deadly unless you know the medical condition of the subject. They may as well use defibrillators to stop a heart, since the idea is almost the same. Suspects are still innocent until proven guilty in America; they should not be exposed to such a risky device.

How about lassos, laughing gas, or anything else that doesn't risk death? There must be alternatives. Let's get creative people!

Law enforcement is being sued, but still taser abuse is increasing. Taser MURDERS increase annually too. Law enforcement must be subject to community oversight. It's tools and weapons must be debated. I hope people reading this blog will take some time to examine the issue, and consider writing to your local newspaper, police, politician or oversight groups before more people die.

Friday's Political Rant/Call to Action #1 - Michael

PS - The Canadians just tightened their rules governing the use of tasers. We Americans need to consider doing the same. Read The Star for more information.

Political News: Schwarzenegger Opposes Anti-Marraige Prop 8, McCain Supports It

Good Morning Bloggers - The New York Times Opinion page had a great editorial recently calling for preserving California's constitution - it points out the governor's support and McCain's opposition.

Preserving California’s Constitution
California voters will have a chance in November to protect the rights of gay men and women, and to preserve the state’s Constitution. They should vote against Proposition 8, which seeks to amend that Constitution to prevent people of the same sex from marrying.

The measure would overturn a firmly grounded State Supreme Court decision that said everyone has a basic right “to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.” It said the state’s strong domestic partnership statute was inadequate, making California the second state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Massachusetts did so in 2004.

Whether this important civil rights victory endures is now up to California voters. Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution.

If passed, Proposition 8 would add language to the State Constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Supporters of the amendment complain about the “activist” judges who wrote the court decision. But the majority in the 4-to-3 ruling was acting to protect a vulnerable group from unfair treatment. Enforcing the state’s guarantee of equal protection is a job assigned to judges.

It is true that in 2000 California voters approved a ballot measure recognizing only heterosexual marriages as valid. But since then, the public has grown more comfortable with idea of marriage equality. The California Legislature passed a measure to let gay couples marry in 2005, and another in 2007. Both were vetoed by the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who took the wrong position — that the change had to come either from the courts or through a ballot initiative.

To his credit, Mr. Schwarzenegger is now among those opposing Proposition 8. To his discredit, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, is in favor of restoring marriage discrimination. Barack Obama opposes the initiative, as do California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats.

The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact.

Similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida. They also should be rejected.

(To see the editorial, visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon3.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

That says it all. I hope my fellow Californians will agree and reject Prop 8.

Tuesday's Political News #1 - Michael