Keep Venice Free – No OPDs

By Greta Cobar

What else could possibly be done to change the welcoming spirit that has been the trademark of Venice for as long as it’s been on the map? How about bringing in Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) that would make it illegal to park without a city-issued permit from 2am to 5am.

The California Coastal Commission has voted against OPDs in Venice on June 11, 2009 and June 10, 2010. Because neither the legislature nor the circumstances have changed since, it is expected that the same vote will yield the same results come June 2013. The judicial system of the US is heavily based on precedent rulings.

The Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) was scheduled to hold a Town Hall meeting on OPDs on April 4, but that meeting was canceled and the next tentative date is May 6.

The reason the last meeting was cancelled and the date for the next one is still up in the air is because of disagreement between Linda Lucks, VNC President, and the Outreach Committee of the VNC, concerning who should be on the panel answering the public’s questions at the Town Hall.

“I’m not going to accept this,” Linda Lucks told the Beachhead about the current selection of panel members. They include Mark Ryavec of the Venice Stakeholders Association; Arturo Pena, Bill Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff; Jane Usher, former President of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission; and Tamara Martin, LADOT representative in charge of OPDs. All of these individuals are strong supporters of OPDs.

Town Hall meetings in Venice have historically been dominated by strong, outspoken opinions and enraged citizens on all sides of an issue. But the current effort of the VNC Outreach Committee is to have the next one be non-controversial and non-confrontational. According to this committee, the option of not having OPDs is not an option anymore.

Following the Coastal Commission’s 2010 ban on OPDs in Venice, Mark Ryavec’s Venice Stakeholders Association filed a lawsuit with the City of Los Angeles in which he argued that no Coastal Commission approval is needed in order to establish OPDs in Venice. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, although at first against Ryavec’s lawsuit, changed his mind and joined forces with Ryavec against the Coastal Commission.

“An earlier, tentative settlement went to the Commission about a year and a half ago, but it was rejected by extremists on the Commission. In the intervening time the Commission membership has dramatically changed,” said Mark Ryavec,

Although the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board voted to approve OPDs in 2010, then Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission Peter Douglas joined forces with the 38 Venice residents who had filed an appeal against OPDs by filing his own appeal.

As a result, the Coastal Commission in 2010 voted against the establishment of OPDs in Venice.

Unfortunately Peter Douglas passed away on April 1, 2012, and the Coastal Commission went from what the World Bank had previously called “the strongest in the world” to what Steve Blank, a Commission member, predicted at the time of Peter Douglas’s death: “Once he’s gone, this commission will implode in the blink of an eye and all we’ll be talking about is the color of the concrete used to pave over what’s left of the coast.”

Currently a tentative settlement between Ryavec and the Coastal Commission has been reached, which would allow OPDs throughout Venice if the Coastal Commission were to approve them. In addition, two-thirds of the residents of each block would have to sign the petition asking for OPDs in order for them to go into effect.

Linda Lucks, although not the most outspoken liberal member of the VNC Board in the past, is now taking a strong stand against the Town Hall panel being represented only by Ryavec and those who agree with him and his settlement with the Coastal Commission.

As a result, Ryavec and his Stakeholders Association on March 25 filed a request for an investigation of an ethics violation by Linda Lucks. According to the request, Lucks should recuse herself from involvement with deliberations concerning OPDs because she has a conflict of interest due to her position as Capital Campaign Coordinator at the Venice Community Housing Corporation, which has opposed OPDs.

“The ethics charges are groundless, I don’t have a conflict of interest,” Lucks told the Beachhead.

Ryavec has previously been a big advocate of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance (OVO), which prohibits RVs from parking on certain streets between 2am and 5am. “Vehicle dwellers have simply moved to vans, small trucks, and SUVs, which are not subject to the restriction on oversize vehicles,” Ryavec stated.

“The city of Los Angeles cannot justify this proposal as a way to address homelessness,” wrote Kim Thompson, a San Fernando valley resident and regular visitor to Venice, in his 2010 appeal to the Coastal Commission against OPDs.

Undoubtedly public access to the beach would be restricted under OPDs. According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.”

The midnight to 5am curfew that is now in place in parts of Venice under LAMC 63.44.B.14(b) is not only selectively enforced, but also illegal. A person sleeping on OFW during that time is likely to be harassed by the police either with a ticket or an arrest, while someone walking his or her dog is likely to be ignored by those same cops.

According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.” Under that same act, the city needs a permit for “any sort of curfews or restrictive ordinances that have such a negative impact on coastal access” said Charles Posner, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission in a phone conversation with the Beachhead in January 2012. The city does not have such a permit.

OPDs come at a price to all residents: they cost money. And the fee will be increased on a yearly basis. All of a sudden we will have to pay to park in front of our own houses and will end up paying outrageous parking tickets when we forget to put up the permit. Our friends will have to leave in the middle of the night or pay for the ticket more than they would for a hotel room if they just decide to crash over. Or, even more trouble can come about if they decide to leave after drinking because they’re worried about getting a ticket.

Although OPDs would be a hassle to the residents, the more important issue to consider is the public’s right of access. Do we want Venice to become the equivalent of a gated community?

Just because certain fractions of the VNC are trying to make it seem as if OPDs are inevitable, the settlement reached by Ryavec is tentative, just like the ones reached in 2009 and 2010. The Coastal Commission cannot afford to discredit itself by issuing a ruling opposing its previous decisions. Neither can it afford fighting and losing, based on the Coastal Act and on precedent rulings, the lawsuits that would inevitably follow.

The Coastal Commission is going to hold a hearing on the settlement on either June 12, 13 or 14 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers, at 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, in Long Beach. The public cannot attend this meeting, but letters opposing OPDs can be mailed in. Also, keep an eye out for the Town Hall meeting, currently scheduled for May 6, and come to voice your opinion during the Question and Answer section.

Sticking to Their Guns

By Jack Neworth

For days after the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School the National Rifle Association was oddly silent. They even shut down their Facebook page and stopped tweeting. (The NRA “tweets?” How weird does that sound?)

Eventually the NRA announced that in an upcoming press conference it would reveal how they would “contribute meaningfully” to preventing further gun violence. Everyone assumed that finally they would be willing to compromise. Everyone was wrong.

On the same day six of the murdered children were buried, the NRA held its press conference, except no questions were allowed. (The big, bad NRA is afraid of the press?)  Instead, Wayne La Pierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice-President (and chief pitchman) took the podium and gave a lengthy and bewildering interpretation of the Sandy Hook massacre reminiscent of something out of the Twilight Zone.

Self-righteously, La Pierre, whose NRA annual salary is reportedly $1.4 million, identified the villains of Sandy Hook as the shooter, violent video games, “blood-soaked” Hollywood movies, President Obama and fluoride in the water. (Okay, I made up the fluoride part.)  The truth is La Pierre blamed everyone and everything but guns.

The movies La Pierre singled out for blame were American Psycho (2000) and Natural Born Killers (1994), neither exactly current.  As for the video games, La Pierre cited Kindergarten Killers, a game no one had heard of until he mentioned it. With its amateurish cartoon figures, one reviewer said the game was so lame and repetitive that “after five minutes I couldn’t stand any more.”

Given the horror of Sandy Hook, La Pierre was shockingly disconnected. Never once did he mention that the Bushmaster AR-15 with the high capacity magazine used at Sandy Hook is the same weapon used at Aurora, Colorado and used by the D.C. sniper in 2003.

Eerily, only days later the Bushmaster would be the weapon of choice of William Spengler. On Christmas Eve in Webster, N.Y., Spengler, 62, killed himself after murdering two firefighters and wounding two others at a blaze he apparently set to lure them to the scene. (Wayne probably blames it on a video game.)   – Continued on page 10

– Continued from page 6

La Pierre’s “solution” to gun violence massacring our children is to have every school in America staffed with an armed policeman. This seemingly ignores that at Columbine there were two armed security officers, at Virginia Tech there was a well-staffed campus police department and at Fort Hood, protected by military police.

Apparently, to La Pierre there can never be enough guns. The U.S. represents 5% of the world’s population, but at 300,000,000 guns we account for 50% of the world’s supply. (Should we chant “we’re #1?”)

Not surprisingly, La Pierre’s “press conference” was a PR disaster. Commentators  were shocked by his “tone deafness.” Even Rupert Murdoch’s conservative NY Post ran a headline, “Wayne La Pierre Is The ‘Craziest Man On Earth” and referred to his speech as a “bizarre rant.” (If anything, the Post was too kind.)

But maybe La Pierre is crazy like a fox. He is, after all, a high-priced pitchman for the gun and ammunition industry and baby, business is booming. Fearing changes in gun laws, on this past Black Friday 300,000 guns were sold nationwide. And since Sandy Hook, assault rifles have been selling off the shelves as delighted manufacturers struggle to keep up with orders. (What a country.)

Since 1982 there have been 62 mass murders in the U.S., 10 this year alone. In the past, as people return to their busy lives and the NRA, with its $250 million annual income, continues to fund pro-gun political campaigns, public outrage subsides. But hopefully not this time.

The seeds are already there. In this recent election the much-feared NRA used their typical bully tactics, plowing huge dollars into eight key congressional races. Guess what?  In seven out of eight their candidates lost. (Can you say “the Emperor has no clothes?”) And I’m confident that the grieving but remarkably strong community at Sandy Hook will not let their children or their children’s heroic teachers and principal die in vain.

Real hunters and gun enthusiasts attest that assault weapons have no place in the sport or even self-defense, nor do 30-100 bullet magazines. The irony is that a majority of NRA members are in favor of changing these laws (as was Ronald Reagan) and closing the gun show loophole which allows 40% of all guns to be purchased without background checks.

But as a shill for the weapons and ammo manufacturers, Wayne La Pierre is sticking to his guns. (Pun intended.) The NRA is famous for giving grades to political candidates ranking them as pro or anti-gun.  Grading La Pierre as a human being with a soul I’d have to give him  an “F.” And frankly I’d also like to tell him what he can do with all those assault weapons but this column is rated PG.

(To encourage the new Congress to pass laws to prevent future gun violence, go to www.bradycampaign.org. Jack can be reached at jnsmdp@aol.com.)

People’s Reactions While Canvasing for Proposition 37 (YES! to Labeling GMOs) at the Ukiah Safeway 10/28/2012

“I’m a felon

I can’t vote!

And I didn’t murder the guy.”

“I’ve already voted,”

sly, grim smile;

with emphasis:

“by secret ballot.”

“I’ve already voted YES!”

YES! YES! YES!

big, happy smiles!!!

“YES! I’m planning to vote for it!”

thank-you for being out here!”

more smiley faces.

“YES! I’m in a wheelchair and

voting for it with my last leg!”

“YES! I’m obese!

GMOS are forced upon us

with no scientific or health studies whatsoever.”

“WOW! look at that photo of a rat’s

giant tumor from eating GMO corn.”

“It’s people’s own fault they

(SUPERSIZE ME!) drink too much soda.”

“I only shop at Farmer’s Markets so it doesn’t affect me.”

WRONG! Monsanto sues small farms

when Monsanto’s hybridized seeds

contaminate farmer’s heirloom and heritage crops.

“Don’t want no more guv’mint regulations.”

“There will be too many lawsuits.”

“It will cost the consumer.”

Price of a new label : .001 cent.

“It will benefit the Co-op.”

Hooray!

“We’re Jehovah’s Witnesses.

We don’t vote.

We believe God will solve the world’s problems.”

?????????????

“I’m voting YES!

I care about our Earth,

our health, and our children’s future.”

– Erica Snowlake

Don’t Sell Out!

By Bradley Bobbs

“Yes, I support the principles of Roseanne Barr and the Peace & Freedom Party; but realistically we know that she’s not going to win the election, so I’m going to vote for Obama to make sure that Romney doesn’t win.” Have you said this to yourself? (Or maybe it was about Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Jill Stein.) If so, just what do you think you’re going to accomplish by selling out your principles like this? You didn’t seriously think that the election was going to be so close that your one vote would decide the result, did you? And you didn’t seriously think that, despite all the evidence to the contrary over the past many decades (including the 2008 election), a Democrat President was really going to do much different from what the Republican candidate would have done if he had won, did you?

So just what ARE you accomplishing by voting for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for good? You’re giving your vote of support to continuing the absolute rule of the Democrats and Republicans (or “Demoblicans” as I call them) and their power to crush any third-party competition. You’re accepting having your principles suppressed indefinitely, as long as the government occasionally throws them a bone to appease them. You’re saying that you don’t want any real change, you just want to stick with the status quo and the establishment that has created every problem that exists in our government today. You’re giving up on your principles and selling out, and sending that message out for all to see. Is that really what you want?

For decade after decade under Demoblican rule, the problems in our government just keep getting worse. The old problems rarely ever get solved, and just keep piling up as the government keeps creating new ones. We see the Presidency keep bouncing back and forth between Democrat and Republican, but rarely bringing about any real positive change. Yet gullible voters keep thinking “If only the Democrats (or Republicans) win this time, everything will get better!” How many times does this foolish expectation have to fail (and fail miserably) to happen until the voters wake up and see that the Demoblicans will only continue to make things worse?

There’s a reason the Demoblicans keep failing to fix the problems in our country:  It’s because that is NOT their goal. They may have an official platform of lofty principles, but they only give it lip service. There is only ONE principle that really means anything to them: Get elected, get power, get money, and get it by whatever means necessary. The Demoblican political machine doesn’t exist to serve YOU, it exists for you to serve IT. It will sweet-talk you, fool you, trick you, or strong-arm you, as needed, to get your vote and your money.  THAT is the goal of the Demoblicans. If you care about principles, you need to look elsewhere, to the candidates who struggle for the opportunity to improve their country only with grassroots support, WITHOUT benefit of a political machine.

If Roseanne is unlikely to win the election, have you thought about why that is? Is it really because her ideas are unpopular, and the Demoblicans have better ideas? Guess again. It’s because the Demoblicans have the power to crush the competition, and no qualms against abusing that power. The Democrats can’t eliminate the Republicans, and vice versa; but the two parties working together can sure as heck keep anyone else from winning. They have almost unlimited power and money at their disposal to do so. The Demoblicans use taxpayer money to fund their conventions and campaigns. They flood the airwaves with their propaganda. They make rules aimed specifically at keeping their competition off the ballots and out of the debates.

The Demoblicans once made a serious error years ago, when Jesse Ventura of the Reform Party was running for governor of Minnesota. They got overconfident and, thinking that Jesse didn’t have a chance of winning anyway, allowed him into the candidate’s debate. Well, once the public got to hear Jesse talk about having real principles, instead of the same old empty promises from the Demoblican candidates, he won the election; and for the first time, a state had a governor that was NOT Demoblican! You can be sure that the Demoblicans learned from their mistake, and that they will do everything in their power to make darn sure that you don’t get to hear third-party candidates debate against Demoblican candidates again!

But the Demoblicans can only crush their competition if the American people allow it. You don’t have to fall for their propaganda that tries to fool you into believing that Democrat and Republican are your only real choices. In fact, the only thing stopping the other candidates from winning is that belief. If the 99%, who supposedly are not happy with our current government and want change, would only do something as simple as voting FOR change instead of continually voting AGAINST change, then the change would come. Instead, most of them just keep voting Demoblican and then gripe about the pitiful consequences that they brought upon themselves.

So now think about what you could accomplish by standing up for your principles and casting your vote for Roseanne (or Gary or Jill or another third-party candidate). You could be sending out the message that you AREN’T happy with the status quo, that you want something better than the unprincipled Demoblican regime that exists only to serve the interests of their politicians by preying upon the American public. You could set an example to all those who don’t have the courage and insight you have to see how a true patriot votes. You could show them that a government run on real moral principles is easily within our grasp, if only they will join you. You could give them hope for a better country. Maybe it won’t happen in this election; but if we keep trying, and don’t sell out to the Demoblicans again, it will happen in time.

Give REAL change a chance. Just say no to the status quo. Vote against the Democrat-Republican regime this time. Don’t sell out!

Roseanne Barr, None Other

By Ronald K. Mc Kinley

Roseanne Barr, Presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom party,  spoke on September 22 at the Church in Ocean Park. Sponsored by the Venice chapter of the Peace and Freedom Party, the event drew a full hose of about 400 attendees.

Born Roseanne Cherrie Barr on November 3, 1952 to Jewish parents in Salt Lake City, Utah, she could only have been a comedienne. Barr’s parents kept their Jewish heritage a secret from their neighbors. Barr’s paternal grandfather changed his surname from Borisofsky to Barr upon entering the U.S. from Russia.

In 1970, when Barr was 18, she moved out by telling her parents she was going to visit a friend in Colorado for two weeks; she never returned. She did stand-up while in Colorado, doing gigs in Denver and other Colorado clubs.

She appeared on The Tonight Show in 1985. In 1987 her HBO special, The Roseanne Barr Show, earned her an American Comedy Award. She was offered the role of Peggy Bundy in Married with Children, but she turned it down.

The Cosby Show executive producers Marcy Carsey and Tom Werner hired Cosby writer Matt Williams to write a script about factory workers, and Roseanne Carter was born. The show premiered October 18, 1988. Barr won an Emmy, a Golden Globe, a Kids Choice Award, and three American Comedy Awards.

During the final two seasons in ’96 and ’97, Barr earned $40 million; the only woman in show business earning more money was Oprah Winfrey.

Barr is the 2012 presidential nominee for the California-based Peace and Freedom Party.

She won the nomination the same day she was roasted by Comedy Central August 4. Her running mate is Cindy Lee Miller Sheehan, born July 10, 1957 in Inglewood, CA.

Barr announced her candidacy for presidential nomination of the Green Party earlier this year, but she lost to Jill Stein, a physician. Stein was a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010 gubernatorial elections. Mitt Romney was elected Governor in 2002.

When I walked up the carpeted stairs to enter the church proper, a black woman greeted me. She was the only woman of color there. She placed a Barr for President sticker on my chest. She wore corn rolls and one afro puff, centered on the back of her head, and a tie-dyed caftan. I found out later that this was Cynthia Mc Kinney, former Georgia Congresswoman and first African-American woman to represent Georgia in the House, former Green Party presidential candidate.

The event began with the Venice songbird Suzy Williams. What a way to begin!

Williams wowed the audience. The third song she sang, Roseanne Barr None, was             written by Williams, Brian Woodbury, and Brad Kay and is Barr’s official 2012 campaign song.

The lyrics were printed and passed out to the audience before-hand for a sing-a-long. Williams’s performance drew praise from Barr herself. Too bad if you missed this one. She is our treasure. She rocked.

Barr spoke about the need to remove the clowns from politics; she said she was the only true comedienne. She voiced what the people wanted to hear, but with humor.

Barr spoke of the fixed vote, the pentagon, and health care vs. health insurance, prison, and media military industrial complex. She spoke of how socialism is a bad word except when it’s for Wall Street.

She rallied against war, saying how the less privileged have to choose between war and prison. She also said that politics is the entertainment arm of the pentagon. She vowed to end the war on drugs, citing prohibition, the Volstead Act, and the lives and money wasted on enforcement.

She wants a vote not owned by the bankers, but change from the bottom up.

Barr sounds a lot like most third party candidates, and that is what America really needs.  That is why she will not win. America badly needs a woman’s touch and a Ms. President. And I don’t mean for housework, unless you mean the House of Representatives.

It was a fun evening thanks to Barr and Williams. But the joke is on us. The state America is in, is not funny. November will tell if we are still the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The Golden Age of Politics

By Chuck Bloomquist

Since Harry Truman stunned Thomas Dewey in the 1948 presidential election I have been a hard-core Democrat. For the same length of time I have been a practicing Contrarian.

In high school I wrote a paper arguing for the merits of “socialized medicine,” one of Harry Truman’s many enlightened initiatives. In my small Iowa town of rock-ribbed Republicans the paper was not well received, even though I had quoted the town’s only socialist in favor of the proposal and the local pharmacist who was vehemently opposed.

While in the Marine Corps I strongly supported Truman’s decision to sack MacArthur. This decision was wildly unpopular especially among the military and my fellow Marines. MacArthur very much wanted a clear-cut victory no matter what it took. Truman’s policy was to drive the North Koreans back across the 38^th parallel and call it quits. I discovered only recently, in Max Hastings book The Korean War, that MacArthur had a list of 26 sites in North Korea, along the Yalu River, and in China proper, that he wanted to attack with atomic bombs to “win”the war against the Chinese Communists. Thank goodness the contrarian view prevailed.

In 1948 I was too young to vote. In 1952 I was still too young to vote, although I had been in Korea for ten months. In the 14 presidential elections since I have voted in 13 of them and always for the Democratic candidate. In retrospect those were all good votes. The only election in which I failed to vote was the 1968 contest in which the Democratic convention forced the nomination of Hubert Humphrey in spite of the delegates won by Eugene McCarthy, who was the primo antiwar contender. This was a grievous mistake on my part. The criminality of Nixon’s reign has led inexorably to 40 years of Ayn (according to her, pronounced ‘swine’) Randian politics.

But we may be on the verge of, to quote one of my least favorite presidents, “a new morning in America.” Right now we have the best Democratic president since FDR. Unfortunately, he has been thrown into the worst political and economic situation in my lifetime. He inherited two unwinnable and unjustifiable wars at a time when our nominal allies could barely stand us, when our infrastructure resembled that of postwar Korea, when our health system was one of the worst in the industrialized world, government regulators were in the pockets of the regulated, nurses and teachers were excoriated as being greedy puppets dangling from the strings of their unions, and the global environment headed for almost certain disaster.

And then, to top it off, the entire world economy was on the brink of collapse thanks to the greed and arrogance of the worlds’ financiers.

Now, in this situation, one might think that everyone would do their best to support the president as he tried to deal with this myriad of problems. But no. The Republicans through the minority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, among others, announced that their primary goal was to make sure that he was a one-term president. To this end he was to be denied any success, however small. They fought him at every turn and by using the filibuster in the Senate were able to deny him most everything he attempted to do. And his fair-weather friends castigated him for doing too little to solve the problems left after 30 years of Reaganism and eight years of Reaganism on steroids.

In spite of it all Obama keeps trying He may be the smartest president since Jefferson and the best politician since Lincoln or FDR. He did manage to pass the Affordable Care Act, a down payment on “socialized medicine,” which extended medical coverage to millions. In spite of Republican ambushes he ended the war in Iraq, is drawing down the war in Afghanistan, and has whacked Osama bin Laden. He has ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, passed Equal Pay for Equal Work legislation, and pushed through financial regulations to deal with the most egregious violations of the banksters. He rescued the auto industry, which put millions back to work and raised fuel efficiency standards in the bargain. Imagine what he might have done with a bit of help from the other side of the aisle.

To top it off in California we have in Jerry Brown arguably the best governor in the United States. After Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey referred to him as “an old retread” Brown responded by challenging Christie to a three-mile run. Brown has cut the state’ budget deficit, overseen two on-time budgets, reformed the state’s worker compensation system and implemented pension reform. With Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein we have two of the best United States Senators in that body, and a House delegation including Henry Waxman and Janice Hahn. Locally, we have a hardworking and intelligent mayor in Antonio Villaraigosa, a reasonable City Council president in Eric Garcetti, and our own energetic City Councilman, Bill Rosendahl and our beautiful and competent Venice Neighborhood Council president, Linda Lucks.

I suspect that most people think that they could do a better job than those named, or at the very least, could tell them how to do their jobs better.

As a life-long contrarian, I disagree. In spite of their peccadilloes and political maneuvering, we are lucky to have each of them. And as a life-long Democrat I urge you all to vote for Democrats every chance you get and to support them to the extent that your purse, energy and conscience allow. It is in the final analysis votes that win elections, not money.

Nothing Secedes Like Success

By Philip Proctor

To the Red States: We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Steve King. We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft; you get WorldCom. We get Harvard, you get Ole’ Miss. We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs: you get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families; you get a bunch of struggling singles.

You will also have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred (unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws), 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 15% of Ohio Republicans believe Romney killed Ben Laden.

By the way, we’re taking the good pot, too. Peace out!

“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” ~ Mitt Romney 

Chicago Teachers Strike

By Fred Owens

I am not getting involved in this issue. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and I have a long-standing survival policy — when they’re fighting downtown, stay away. Chicago fights can get nasty. Then you throw in teachers and parents getting into these fits of self-righteousness about who really cares about the precious children  — bystanders can get injured.

The timing of the strike is terrible for President Obama. There’s a hundred ways he can lose and no upside. But I have more concern for the parents of the school children. I remember when my two kids were small and in grade school and the summer vacation drags on and on, and by late August you’re ready to kill them or abandon them at the nearest bus stop and your only salvation is that the little brats will be going back to school after Labor Day and someone else will be watching them for a while.  So this is a vulnerable time for parents. Teachers should strike in the middle of the school year — it would be more of a fair fight.

But don’t ask me about the issues — performance reviews, wages, co-pays on pensions & insurance, class size, curriculum content  — I have nothing to say.

Except maybe one thing. I can’t teach, but I admire people who can teach. It’s a special skill. I couldn’t be the principal of school either, having to deal with students every day and making judgments on the spot. But I could easily be a school superintendent. It takes no brains for that job, and you get paid enormous amounts of money. That’s the whole key to success in education. Teaching is a job for suckers. The real money is in the overhead.

Seriously, teachers are on the front lines of education — they work for their money. It’s the people upstairs who put a strain on the budget.

Roseanne Barr Is Coming to Venice

By Karl Abrams

Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr is coming to Venice. The former comedienne, TV star and role model for millions of working class women is the candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party. Barr and long-time activist Cindy Sheehan won over the majority of delegates at the Peace and Freedom (P&F) Party’s exciting Los Angeles convention on August 4 to become candidates for the 2012 Presidential election.

Both Barr and Sheehan spoke to the delegates (I was one of them) about progressive and socialist philosophies that they believe will help to create a better world. Overall, Barr’s political speech was especially laugh-at-loud hilarious, a crowd pleasing technique that she calls “serious comedy that just writes itself.”

The P&F Party is a democratic socialist, feminist and environmentalist political party founded in Venice in 1967 as a progressive alternative to the standard two-party policies of endless wars on both the third world and U.S. workers at home. Originally, and still, an anti-war and a free education party, its Venice Chapter headquarters was always very visible on Abbot Kinney Blvd during the 60s and 70s and always busy signing up new registrants. Presently the California P&F Party is in need of about 45,000 new members to remain on the ballot after 2014.

Barr, having also been a feminist and activist most of her life and an outspoken supporter of the Occupy Movement, is asking the American people to register in the P&F Party because the “…American people are sick and tired of the lesser of two evils garbage.” Barr, who started her career as a stand-up comic, is also an award-winning actress, a producer and a writer of several books. Having successfully starred in the sitcom Roseanne for 11 years and having won a Primetime Emmy Award, a People’s Choice Award and two Golden Globe Awards for Best Actress, the 59-year old Barr now intends to turn her comedic genius towards the embarrassment of the 1 percent, the legalization of marijuana and the erasure of all homeowner and student loan debt. And that’s just for starters.

Barr and Sheehan outright reject the “tweedledum and tweetledee” politics of Republicans and Democrats. Instead, they have enthusiastically embraced the platform of the P&F Party (www.peaceandfreedom.org and www.VenicePeaceandFreedom.org), dramatized by some slogans presented on Barr’s website, www.roseanneforpresident2012.org.

For example, “We need you to make History! – Participate in your democracy!” Or, “Vote Peace and Freedom Party. America needs a real third party choice.” It is also here that Barr asks the question, “Do you want to be homeless and jobless in the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

Her website is also calling for volunteers to help with the historic task of getting the Barr-Sheehan ticket to appear on the ballot in at least 15 other states.

Another website, “Roseanne World” (www.roseanneworld.com) is a great site to understand why Barr is running for President. Here, in one of several interesting videos, Barr says, “I want the American people to have the opportunity to vote for a party which is not owned by bankers!”

And how Barr loves to tweet (Roseanne Barr@TheRealRoseanne). It is precisely here that her fearless ability to mix comedy and politics can be witnessed first hand. Her tweeted campaign slogan is, “I will fix this Shit!”  When referring to America’s two major parties, she tweets, “They suck and they’re both a bunch of criminals.” In another tweet Barr has promised to institute “European-style single-payer healthcare … and to forgive all credit card and mortgage debt.”

According to the New York Daily News, Barr has stated that, “The Democrats and Republicans have proven that they are servants — bought and paid for by the 1% — who are not doing what’s in the best interest of the American people.” At the same time, Barr points to financiers who have, “…stolen our money, our future and the American Dream…continue to enslave us with a broken monetary system.”

Barr also advocates for a variety of progressive issues as addressed on her website and in her Official Candidate Questionnaire (http://bit.ly/Aqdr0W). The legalization of marijuana, for example, is viewed to “…end all Drug Wars and stop the monopoly of the subsidized prison systems…” Barr and Sheehan both are in favor of “self-determination and the right of return” for “Palestinians who have had their land stolen from them”, and want  “…to bring U.S. troops home and create new Green jobs [that] put people back to work”. Barr says that, “Wars make the stock market go up and are fueled by profits…[while] the Military Industrial Complex…[remains] our shadow government. Let’s work together to make war obsolete.” Barr says she dreams of an American society that, “Runs best on diversity and freedom of thought interjected from many kinds of people”.

Cindy Sheehan is a tireless activist for world peace. On her website (www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com) we are reminded of the tragic loss of her son during the Iraq War and how she transformed from a liberal democrat into a democratic socialist. Sheehan, the author of six books, has traveled and spoken to people all over the world about how the “U.S. is guilty of fighting an illegal and immoral war.” She ran for Congress against House speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008, coming in second place with 50,000 votes. At the convention, Sheehan also spoke for those who want a higher standard of living and education, in a peaceful world with “innovative solutions to homelessness and poverty.”

Can Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan actually win? Third party candidates always start out with high percentages and shrink to about 1 percent by the time of the election due to mass media reports of a close race between Democrats and Republicans. A better question to ask is can a big vote for Barr-Sheehan force Obama to the left. He already has California locked up so voting for Barr would not put his win in jeopardy.

According to an early 2012 study by Public Policy Polling (www.publicpolicypolling.com) and as discussed by The American Prospect (prospect.org), Barr would get a whopping 6% of the national vote if she ran for President. California might even be higher. Even more amazingly, young voters aged 18 to 29 who would vote Barr for President is even higher at 19% of the national vote. Nonetheless, even if Barr and Sheehan lose, many millions will gain in understanding how a better world is still possible with socialism.

Because of the passing of California’s Proposition 14, the Peace and Freedom Party must almost double its registered voters to more than 100,000 in California by the end of 2014 to stay on the ballot. So, it is very important to register with the Peace and Freedom Party 30 days before the November 4 election.

Roseanne will speak at the Church in Ocean Park (2^nd and Hill St.) at 7 pm Saturday, September 22.

Beach Curfew Violates Law

By John Davis

The Beachhead has reported on an ordinance of the City of Los Angeles that violates the California Constitution and the California Coastal Act. Former Executive Director Peter Douglas of the Coastal Commission agreed with the public that the City curfew has violated the law from the beginning. He stated that the City curfew was “unenforceable.”

Yet the City continues to arrest people to prevent them from legally using the public trust lands whenever they like, night or day. Some people work in the day so the only time they can enjoy the beach is at night. The same is true of fishermen when the bite is on at night or people who like to view the full moon in all its splendor as it illuminates the shining night sea.

But the L.A. City Council, particularly Councilperson Bill Rosendahl of CD 11, implies that there are Boogie Men who may roam the beach after sunset, creating such wild mischief that the public must be kept away. The City implies it cannot afford to provide a police patrol at night, even though untold millions of tax revenue is generated by Venice annually.

What is really happening is that Councilman Rosendahl is riding point for his posse so those who can afford beachfront real estate will enjoy higher property values.

Removing the public from the beaches they own provides exclusivity to certain property owners. If you owned a nice beachfront home in Venice, like former Congressperson Jane Harman does, would you prefer to see poor people on your beach after sunset? Of course not, they would ruin the view, and God forbid, reduce the value of the real estate. What better way to stop this than to imprison them! Bill is their man. Atop his high horse, he bugles the cry to sweep up the homeless from their home and to cleanse the beach. But he not only wants to remove the homeless. He wants all of us to get off the beach by sundown, or else his dark posse will ride down and punish you.

But the story goes ever further. Dockweiler State Park has three sections. One is south of the Marina Del Rey main channel, the other is just north, 11 acres (Least Tern Reserve) and most importantly, three acres where the Venice Pavilion once stood.

The City entered into an agreement with the State Department of Parks and Recreation in 1943 to lease and operate Dockweiler State Park. That agreement ended in 1998.

Currently, the City has no legal authority over the Park nor does the County, which provided maintenance and lifeguard services to the City while the lease was current. This places major liabilities on the State Park System, which is now responsible for any injuries that occur on State Park lands. The City no longer holds the State harmless and indemnifies it, (the State is now responsible for loss not the City). I met with and informed the Superintendent of the State Park, Craig Sap, of this matter on June 13.

At no time, even when the City leased the State Park, did it ever have the authority to impose a curfew on the public parklands. The Regulations that govern the State Parks system only allow the Executive Director, Ruth Coleman, to impose a temporary curfew, and only for minors.

The State Parks Commission needs to consider this matter as soon as possible to make the City straighten up and fly right.

Andrew Willis, enforcement officer of the Coastal Commission, said the Commission is discussing the matter with the City and is encouraged the City will soon apply for a Coastal Development Permit. However, when I spoke to Rosendahl’s trusty sidekick, Arturo Pina, he informed me the City had not yet applied. How many years does it take to fill out an application?

Andrew Willlis has said the same thing for years, but with no visible result. The Commission has failed to place this on its agenda as a violation of the Coastal Act.

Alex Halprin, Senior Staff Legal Counsel, sent the last formal letter to the Commission on February 3, 2011 reiterating Peter Douglas, “Because no such authorization has been granted, it is the position of the Commission’s Legal Division that the Beach Curfew is currently of no legal force or effect.”

Willis indicated that the Commission might be sued if it attempts to enforce the Coastal Act. I responded the Commission should welcome such a suit because a legal motion for dismissal or summary judgment would easily defeat it. I said the public would be enraged if the City fought to keep the people off of their beaches. The City would then back down. Willis would not even acknowledge this as a possibility, but focused only on not bringing the violation before the public Commission for enforcement.

Perhaps he and the Commission are in fear of the L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who stated on October 1, 2010 that the City needs no permit from the Coastal Commission, which is attempting to exercise the powers of a “super-legislature or court with power to effectively veto or nullify the laws of Charter Cities….Indeed, your interpretation of the Coastal Act is contrary to separation of powers defined by the Constitution of the State of California… A development in the Coastal Act always refers to physical structures and things: buildings, walls, fences, etc.” (Note: The Coastal Act also defines development as change in access according to the Coastal Act).

Trutanich went on to state that “the Commission is not a Court….We trust the concept of the democratic process is not completely lost on the Commission and its Staff…The Commission obviously intends its investigation, (into the illegal curfew), to harass the City…The ongoing investigation ….represents retaliation against the City.”

Trutanich fails to even address the issue of constitutional access to public trust lands because there is no logic in which the City can override the Constitution of the State.

As for the Coastal Commission, they have known about the violation since 2008. The Commission staff has hidden well over 1,000 other known violations from the public by failing to place them as enforcement matters before the Commission. This allows the staff, behind closed doors, to decided who can violate the Coastal Act and who they will let get away with the crime. It is the Commission at a public meeting that is to decide, not staff.

My opinion is that the Commission is not afraid of the City, but is working with it behind closed doors and with no written record to allow the violations to continue without intervention.

The non-enforcement of the Coastal Act further encourages the City’s ongoing violation and is green lighting to all other coastal communities up and down the coast that they too can remove the public in order to prop up real estate values for certain financially privileged individuals.