id stringlengths 32 32 | url stringlengths 31 1.58k | title stringlengths 0 1.02k | contents stringlengths 92 1.17M |
|---|---|---|---|
fd1a4c9729f97c24863ec6eb89885b54 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/072915/dcf-vs-comparables-which-one-use.asp | Discounted Cash Flows vs. Comparables | Discounted Cash Flows vs. Comparables
In an equity valuation theory and practice, there are generally two valuation approaches: discounted cash flows (DCF) and comparables.
The DCF Model
The DCF model refers to a group of approaches that are also called “present value models.” These traditionally assume the value of an asset equals the present value of all future monetary benefits. This model is easy to use when the future cash benefits are known or can be at least reasonably forecasted.
Image by Julie Bang © Investopedia 2020
Generally, a DCF model requires the following inputs:
Future cash flowsAny growth rate of the cash flows The required rate of return (opportunity cost), which is used as a discount rate
The most common variations of the DCF model are the dividend discount model (DDM) and the free cash flow (FCF) model, which, in turn, has two forms: free cash flow to equity (FCFE) and free cash flow to firm (FCFF) models. In the DDM, future dividends represent cash flows that are discounted with a relevant required rate of return.
If companies are expected to increase dividend payouts, this must also be modeled. In addition, a constant growth rate or multiple growth rates representing long-term and short-term growth rates are added to the model.
Advantages Disadvantages Intrinsic value of an equity can be justifiedRelies on free cash flows rather than accounting figuresDifferent variations of the model account for different growth rates (e.g., multistage models) Based on assumptions on inputs (growth rate, required return on equity and future cash flows)Difficult to forecast cash flows in cyclical businesses
The Comparables Method
The comparables method uses ratios from an industry, peer group or similar companies to estimate a company’s equity value. The following ratios are mostly used: price-to-earning ratio (P/E), price-to-sales ratio (P/S), and enterprise value-to-earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EV/EBITDA), which are also called multiples (because of this, the comparables method is also called the “multiples method.”) The prevailing concept behind the comparable method is the law of one price, which states that similar assets should sell at a similar price. We can rephrase this for company earnings or profit: Companies that have similar revenues and earnings drivers should be worth about the same.
For example, imagine that you want to value the equity of a company that operates in office printing devices business and the trailing-12-month (TTM) earnings per share (EPS) is $0.50. If the TTM P/E ratio for this industry is 18.55x, then by multiplying company EPS by this multiple, we obtain $9.275 (0.5*18.55), which can be assumed to be the intrinsic value of the company's common stock.
Advantages Disadvantages Easy to understand and applyFewer assumptions used than with DCFBetter captures current mood of market Choice of multiples sometimes subjectiveDifficult to find comparables with identical, or at least similar, revenue driversAssumption that market accurately values the peer group
Which Model to Use
The choice between these two alternative valuation models will depend on specific factors, such as availability and accuracy of the inputs (revenue drivers, business cycles, etc.).
Dividend-Paying, Mature and Stable Companies
The DDM model is best applied for stable and mature public companies that pay dividends. For example, BP plc. (BP), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (WMT) pay regular dividends and can be characterized as stable and mature businesses. Therefore, the DDM can be applied to value these companies.
The FCF model can be used to calculate the valuation of companies that do not pay dividends or pay dividends in an irregular fashion. This model is also applied for those companies with a dividend growth rate that does not properly capture the earnings growth rates.
Companies with Diverse Revenue Drivers
When a company valued has a diversified revenue source, the free cash flow method can be a better approach than the comparable method, simply because finding a true comparison can be problematic. Today there are a number of large-cap companies with diversified revenue drivers. This feature makes it challenging to find a relevant peer group, company, or even industry multiples.
For example, both Canon Inc. (CAJ) and Hewlett-Packard Company (HPQ) are large manufacturers of printing machines for business and personal use. However, HP’s revenue also is derived from the computer business. HP and Apple are both competitors in the computer business, but Apple derives its revenue mostly from sales of smartphones and its built-in app store.
Apparently, neither Canon and HP, nor HP and Apple, can be in a peer group in order to use a peer group multiple.
Valuation of Private Companies
There is no straightforward choice of valuation model for private companies. It will depend on the maturation of the private company and the availability of model inputs. For a stable and mature company, the comparables method can be the best option.
In general, it is very complicated to get the inputs required for the DCF model from private companies. The beta, which is one of the key inputs for a returns estimation of a private company, is best estimated using comparable firms’ betas. This makes it challenging to apply the DCF model.
Private companies do not distribute regular dividends, and therefore, future dividend distribution is unpredictable. The free cash flow model would also be unreliable for valuing relatively new private companies due to the high uncertainty surrounding the business itself. However, in the early stages of a private company with a high growth rate, the FCF model may be a better option for common equity valuation.
Valuation of Cyclical Companies
Cyclical companies are those that experience high volatility of earnings based on business cycles. This can lead to difficulties in forecasting future earnings. Forecasting earnings is a base for the DCF models (be it DDM or FCF model). The relationship between risk and return implies that increased risk shall be accounted for in an increased discount rate, making the model even more complicated. As a result, if an investor chooses the DCF model to value a cyclical company, they will most likely get inaccurate results. The comparable method can better solve the cyclicality problem.
The Bottom Line
A mix of factors impacts the choice of which equity valuation model to choose. No one model is ideal for a certain type of company. Ideally, both models should yield close results, if not the same. The DCF model requires high accuracy in forecasting future dividends or free cash flows, whereas the comparables method requires the availability of a fair, comparable peer group (or industry), since this model is based on the law of one price, which states that similar goods should sell at similar prices (thus, similar revenues earned from the similar sources should be similarly priced).
|
b7cf3ecc21b9c4650d113a8545f35099 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/080415/goodwill-impairment-test-understand-basics.asp | Goodwill Impairment Test: Understand the Basics | Goodwill Impairment Test: Understand the Basics
During the infamous dotcom bubble in the late-1990s, many companies overpaid for their acquisitions. When the bubble collapsed, companies had to record these overpayments on their balance sheet as a loss called a goodwill impairment charge. Perhaps the most famous goodwill impairment charge was the $99.7 billion reported in 2002 for the AOL Time Warner, Inc. merger. This was the largest loss ever reported by a company.
Goodwill is an intangible asset arising from the acquisition of one company by another. When an acquiring company purchases a company for more than its book value, the excess over book value is included as goodwill on the acquirer's balance sheet. Many investors consider goodwill to be among the most difficult assets to value. To begin with, there are many possible justifications for goodwill: intangible assets such as strong customer relations, intellectual property, or a popular brand are just some of the factors that can contribute to goodwill. As such, it is often difficult to understand what exactly is supporting any given goodwill asset. Only adding to the difficulty posed by goodwill is the fact that—whether deliberately or inadvertently—goodwill is often exaggerated. Such exaggerations can mislead investors by causing companies’ assets to appear artificially robust. In this article, we examine how to accurately quantify a company’s goodwill.
From Boom to Bust: The Story of Goodwill
One of the telltale signs of a stock market bubble is when companies begin overpaying for acquisitions. When this happens, the difference between the price paid to acquire the target company and the fair market value of that company is stated as an asset called goodwill on the acquirer’s balance sheet. (Learn more in Breaking Down the Balance Sheet.)
Under United States generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), the acquiring company must periodically adjust the stated value of the goodwill asset held on its balance sheet and claim the difference as a loss. This loss adjustment is called an impairment charge and it can have a devastating effect on a company’s value. Remember the $99.7 billion AOL Time Warner impairment charge? It was followed by a devastating decline in the company’s stock valuation: a fall from $226 billion to $20 billion.
Partly as a result of such scandals, regulators now require companies to perform annual goodwill impairment tests to determine if a company’s stated goodwill exceeds its fair market value. When these tests result in goodwill being reduced, the company states the reduction on its financial statements as a loss due to goodwill impairment. (Learn more in Impairment Charges: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.)
With this background in mind, we can now take a look at the basic steps involved in a goodwill impairment test.
Getting to Know The Goodwill Impairment Test
The basic procedure governing goodwill impairment tests is set out in the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in ASC 350-20-35, “Subsequent Measurement.” You can access the codification directly online. A goodwill impairment test progresses in three broad stages: 1) a preliminary qualitative assessment, 2) stage one of a quantitative assessment, and 3) stage two of a quantitative assessment.
Step 1: Preliminary Qualitative Assessment
In the preliminary qualitative assessment, the company must determine whether the goodwill carried on its balance sheet is likely to exceed its fair market value. This determination must be based on all relevant factors like macroeconomic developments, political or regulatory changes, the emergence of new industry competitors, managerial or structural changes within the firm, and others. If the preliminary qualitative assessment shows that the goodwill carried on the company’s balance sheet is unlikely to exceed its fair market value, then no further testing is required. If the company concludes that its stated goodwill is likely to exceed its fair market value, then it must perform the first stage of a two-stage quantitative assessment.
Step 2: Stage One Qualitative Assessment
The first stage of this quantitative assessment consists of calculating the fair value of the reporting unit on which the goodwill is based, and then comparing that fair value to the amount of goodwill currently carried on the company’s balance sheet. A reporting unit is defined as an operating segment of the company that has individual business operations, generates its own financial documentation, and operates under the oversight and review of company management. In making this calculation, the company must weigh the relative impact of all factors that may have materially affected the value of the company’s goodwill asset. In essence, this stage of the quantitative assessment is a more precise version of the preliminary qualitative assessment.
If this assessment reveals that the value of goodwill stated on the company’s balance sheet does not exceed its fair value, then no further testing is required. If, on the other hand, the assessment reveals that stated goodwill does exceed its fair value, the company must proceed to stage two of the quantitative assessment.
Step 3: Stage Two Qualitative Assessment
In the second stage of the quantitative assessment, the company scrutinizes the value of the individual assets and liabilities of the reporting unit in order to determine its fair value. If, on the basis of this analysis, the company determines that the goodwill exceeds the fair value of the reporting unit in question, then the excess goodwill is defined as an impairment to goodwill. The value of this impairment is subsequently reported as a goodwill impairment charge in the company’s financial statements. (Learn more in How Does Goodwill Affect Financial Statements?)
Simplified Alternatives for Private Companies
Conducting goodwill impairment tests every year can be expensive and time consuming, particularly for smaller businesses that may have limited internal expertise and resources. In order to reduce the cost and complexity, the Financial Accounting Standards Board introduced an alternative method of completing the goodwill impairment test. The catch is only private companies can use the alternative.
As set out in Accounting Standards Update 2014-02, the new method streamlines test processes. One of the most significant changes is that private businesses can perform goodwill impairment tests on as as-needed basis instead of every year. What does as-needed mean? The company need only run a goodwill impairment test if it deems that an event or change has had a material impact on the fair value of its stated goodwill. In addition, this update grants private businesses the ability to amortize their goodwill over a period of 10 years or less.
The Bottom Line
Given the difficulty of putting a dollar value on intangible assets like brands, customer relations, and proprietary technologies, it is no surprise that goodwill charges can be controversial. Indeed, as the above discussion shows, the valuation of goodwill can prove as difficult for managers as for investors. What is abundantly clear, however, is that overpaying for acquisitions can prove to be an immensely costly mistake. To mitigate the risk of being surprised by goodwill impairment charges, investors must scrutinize whether the company has a habit of overpaying for their acquisitions.
Disclosure: At the time of publication, Jason Fernando had no positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. He does not intend to trade any of the securities mentioned in this article within 48 hours of publication.
|
ae5fe5a2f1ace45ae52517b8d73ff182 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/080615/5-biggest-financial-advisory-firms-us.asp | The 5 Biggest Financial Advisory Firms in the U.S. | The 5 Biggest Financial Advisory Firms in the U.S.
Choosing a financial advisory firm can be a difficult task, as there are thousands to wade through. Many have specific strengths and offer different ways to invest one's hard-earned money. It's always worth doing your research to know which suits your needs and risks best, however, often choosing some of the largest financial advisory firms can be a good option. They have proven track records, a variety of products, and significant amounts of transparency.
The following five financial advisory firms operate with more than $1 trillion in total assets under management (AUM): BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, and J.P Morgan Asset Management. Each of these companies is one of the best in the industry for different reasons, whether it be low fees and innovation, more than a century of dedicated financial management, or great customer satisfaction.
American investors can choose from thousands of financial advisory firms. The market is top-heavy, which makes sense; a well-known and well-respected name goes a long way in securing assets from families and businesses. It's no accident that these companies are the top dogs, they have worked hard to become so, and have provided consistent positive returns for investors. As such, potential investors can find reasons to like each.
These firms are so large that they offer a multitude of services for all types of clients. Some also provide a broad exposure to the market through the various mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) they offer. Most investors will be able to find what suits their investment needs within the offerings of each of the firms.
1. BlackRock
BlackRock is the largest investment firm in the world. It manages $7.34 trillion as of June 30, 2019. The company has been a proponent of exchange traded funds and it has gained popularity through its iShares funds that make up more than 25% of its AUM. The company is a powerhouse, operating in 30 countries with clients in 100 countries.
2. Vanguard
Vanguard has been a revelation in the investment management world, especially since the turn of the century. Much like Walmart in the retail sector, Vanguard became king of the hill through cheap prices and a huge variety of offerings. The company is famous for its low expense ratios on funds and passive investment management.
With $6.3 trillion in total AUM as of Jan. 31, 2020, Vanguard is the second-largest advisory firm. The company lives by the mantra of lower prices and allows investors to keep more of their returns, and customers have responded by flocking to Vanguard in droves.
3. Fidelity Investments
Fidelity Investments earned its name in the brokerage and mutual fund provider spaces. It's fitting that Fidelity—a word meaning loyalty, support, and faithfulness—is one of the most highly-rated investment advisory firms in terms of customer satisfaction and online support. The fund manages $2.96 trillion in assets and offers a variety of mutual funds for the benefit of all types of investors.
4. State Street Global Advisors
State Street manages $2.95 trillion in assets as of Sept. 30, 2019. State Street offers investment management services to a broad swath of clients, including retail investors. It was one of the first proponents of exchange traded funds and manages one of the most, if not the most, popular exchange traded fund: the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY). This exchange traded fund tracks the S&P 500. State Street manages many funds under the SPDR brand name that focus on a variety of sectors, allowing investors to gain access to many areas of the market.
5. J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Founded by the legendary John Pierpont Morgan, J.P. Morgan & Co.—now JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)—is perhaps the most important private financial institution in U.S. history. The firm is the largest bank in the U.S. and one of the biggest financial conglomerates in the world. It's CEO, Jamie Dimon, is one of the most celebrated financial professionals in the world, often found giving advice to the President and other world leaders.
It's no surprise that J.P. Morgan is among the top five largest financial advisory firms, given its track record and name recognition. Among its targeted advisory groups are other financial institutions, governments, pensions, businesses, and individuals. Its asset management division oversees $1.9 trillion in assets as of March 31, 2020.
|
07adcdb9175822cc6bd2fe232f84b84b | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/080913/claritas-investment-certificate-new-foundationlevel-program-cfa-institute.asp | Claritas Investment Certificate | Claritas Investment Certificate
What Is the Claritas Investment Certificate Program?
The CFA Institute offers a third program, apart from the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation—the gold standard for professionals involved in investment decision-making—and the Certificate in Investment Performance Measurement (CIPM).
The Claritas Investment Certificate was launched on May 20, 2013, at the 66th CFA Institute Annual Conference in Singapore. The program was developed by the CFA Institute over two years as part of a global call to action for industry participants to play a role in addressing the overall lack of trust in financial services, following the worldwide financial crisis of 2008.
Key Takeaways The Claritas Investment Certificate is a program that focuses on investment industry basics and the roles and responsibilities of financial services professionals.The program is an online, self-study course, with seven course modules covering various topics, such as industry controls and ethics and regulations.Although the Claritas Investment Certificate and the CFA designation address the same industry, the CFA curriculum is much more in-depth and geared towards individuals who are directly involved in investment decision-making.Participants in the program gain access to study materials, which consist of an eBook, a study planner, chapter review and practice questions, and a mock exam fashioned after the administered exam.
Understanding the Claritas Investment Certificate Program
The Claritas Investment Certificate is a foundation-level program designed to provide a clear understanding of investment industry basics and the roles and responsibilities of financial services professionals.
Since there are no restrictions on entry into the Claritas program, it may be a cost-effective alternative for someone looking to switch fields and get into the financial services industry. It is well-suited for professionals working with investment decision-makers in support or back-office/front-office functions (e.g., operations, administration, IT, human resources, marketing, sales, compliance, customer service). It also appears appropriate for students who wish to get into entry-level financial services positions.
Claritas Investment Certificate Requirements
The program is an online, self-study course comprised of 21 chapters organized into seven modules (approximate exam weightings are shown in parentheses):
Module 1—Industry Overview (5%)Module 2—Ethics and Regulation (10%)Module 3—Tools and Inputs (20%)Module 4—Investment Instruments (20%)Module 5—Industry Structure (20%)Module 6—Industry Controls (20%)Module 7—Serving Client’s Needs (5%)
Participants can expect about 80 to 100 hours of study over a three to six month period.
Study materials consist of an eBook, a study planner, chapter review and practice questions, and a mock exam, which has the same length and topic weightings as the actual Claritas exam.
The eBook contains the complete Claritas Course of Study and forms the foundation of all exam questions. It can be accessed online and can be downloaded to as many as four devices (two computers and two mobile devices).
The eBook is also available in print through Amazon.com (two volumes at a cost of $45 each). Candidates also gain access to a personalized planner that can help them assess the time commitment required per chapter, based on the number of days remaining until the scheduled exam date.
Fees
Individual registration costs $685 and includes access to all study materials, the exam registration fee, and one exam sitting. The cost can be lowered by as much as $200 if you work for a large firm that supports the program and register through your employer. Employers and institutions can buy Claritas bulk registration vouchers at a discounted price: 25 to 99 vouchers $635 each; 100 to 249 vouchers $585 each; and 250 or more vouchers $485 each.
Examination
After registering for the Claritas examination, a candidate must schedule an exam appointment and take the exam within 180 days. The Claritas examination is computer-based and consists of 120 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 120 minutes.
The exam is administered at many Pearson VUE test centers around the world. Exam candidates are asked to allow up to 2½ hours at the test center, which includes time to check-in, go through the exam tutorial, review and agree to the Claritas Candidate Pledge, and complete the exam.
Claritas Investment Certificate vs. CFA
The Claritas Investment Certificate differs substantially from the CFA in several ways, including:
Program scope: The CFA program is widely considered to be the investment profession’s most rigorous credentialing program and the “gold standard” for investment management. The Claritas certificate is a foundation-level program that aims to impart an understanding of investment industry fundamentals. While the CFA curriculum is much more in-depth, the Claritas program can be a good way to “test the waters” for those considering enrollment in the CFA program.Different target markets: The Claritas certification is aimed at everyone in the investment industry who helps enable investment decision-making. The CFA program is targeted at those individuals who are directly involved in investment decision-making.Entry requirements: While the Claritas certificate is aimed at support staff in the financial services sector, there are no entry restrictions, and anyone can register for it. In contrast, the entry requirements for the CFA program are quite stringent—the candidate should either have a Bachelor’s degree (or be in the final year of a Bachelor’s degree program), four years of professional work experience, or a combined four years of college and professional work experience. Candidates must also sign a Professional Conduct Statement disclosing if they have been the subject of a written complaint or have been involved in any litigation or investigation for the previous two years.Certificate/charter requirements: Candidates who successfully pass the Claritas exam receive the Claritas Investment Certificate. To become a CFA charterholder, the candidate must pass all three levels of the CFA program, each of which culminates in a six-hour exam. Also, the candidate must possess four years of qualified investment work experience of which at least 50% must be directly involved in making investment decisions.Passing levels: 82% of the 2,408 candidates who took part in the Claritas pilot program successfully passed the exam. It's estimated that one in five people who begin the CFA program will successfully complete it and becomes a CFA charterholder. Commitment levels: The Claritas program is cheaper and requires less time commitment than the CFA. CFA candidates pay a one-time enrollment fee of $440, as well as an exam registration fee that can range between $620 and $1,170, depending on whether the registration is done before the first deadline in September or the final one in March. Each level of the CFA program takes about six months of preparation. While most candidates take between two and five years to complete the program, successful candidates take an average of four years.
|
ca815a954e925a417606d030914497d8 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/081715/how-does-tim-cooks-management-style-differ-steve-jobs.asp | How Does Tim Cook's Management Style Differ from Steve Jobs? (AAPL) | How Does Tim Cook's Management Style Differ from Steve Jobs? (AAPL)
Apple Inc (Nasdaq: AAPL) reported record-breaking quarterly earnings on October 27--$51 billion in revenue and $11.1 billion net profit in what is for them the fourth fiscal quarter of 2015. According to Apple's official press release, CEO Tim Cook said, “Fiscal 2015 was Apple’s most successful year ever, with revenue growing 28% to nearly $234 billion."
Perhaps this gives hope to those who were pessimistic about Cook's ability to accomplish the near-impossible task of filling the shoes of legendary Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Jobs, one of the two cofounders of the company and widely regarded as one of the world's true visionaries, built much of his persona right into the company itself.
Steve Jobs had a rocky relationship with the company he started, at one point being fired as CEO. In true entrepreneurial fashion, didn't take his first exit from Apple lying down, and instead started a competitive computer company called NeXT, Inc. The company was eventually purchased by Apple after NeXT fell on hard times.
The goal of the NeXT acquisition was to bring Jobs back into the fold as Apple's leader. From that point, Jobs became the face of Apple all the way until he stepped down in 2011. Jobs handpicked his successor, and Tim Cook, the current CEO, stepped into power at the end of 2011.
While many people have criticized him for not running Apple like Steve Jobs would, Jobs reportedly told Cook on his death bed to "never ask himself, 'What would Steve Jobs do?'" This highlights the fact that Jobs knew the exact person he picked to replace him, and for good reason. Apple has continued its phenomenal success since Cook took over as CEO.
Management Style
The first and most glaring difference is Cook's unique and different approach to management. Jobs was known as a passionate, albeit abrasive, leader and CEO who demanded perfection and excellence from his staff.
Cook, on the other hand, continues to seek to achieve excellence at Apple, but he does so with a distinctly different management style. He has made an immediate point to stress transparency and teamwork within the Apple organization. Cook tends to have a very calm demeanor, and he is much more approachable than Jobs was.
Cook inspires his employees through an open-door policy and by encouraging a collaborative environment at Apple.
Cook has some similarities to Jobs in management styles, too. While most of his management techniques are more passive than Jobs', both Cook and Jobs have kept very high expectations for the company and individual employees as CEOs of Apple.
The end result of the differing management styles is the same: massive success for Apple.
Commitment to Product Differentiation and Product Lines
Under Jobs' leadership, Apple kicked into high gear in terms of the products it released to the public. Jobs oversaw the introduction of the iMac, the iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, the App store and the iPad. This suite of products still makes up the core business of Apple.
Cook, however, has only overseen the introduction of the iPad mini, the iPad retina and the Apple Watch in his three years as CEO. However, it is worth noting that Jobs was the CEO of Apple for a much longer term than Cook's current tenure, so he had more time to implement new products.
Cook's focus on Apple's core business and his decision to pump the brakes on new products is typical of his style and ideology. While Jobs was looking to constantly innovate, Cook seeks to focus on products that are already doing very well. For example, the Apple Watch is an expansion of the iPhone, rather than an entirely new and innovative product.
Paying Investors Back
During Jobs' long tenure as the CEO of Apple, the company never paid a dividend to investors. Under the current reign of Cook, Apple paid its first cash dividend in 17 years when it paid a dividend in 2012. This dividend highlights another difference in Cook's treatment of Apple's massive cash reserves and how he views the company's relationship with its investors.
|
6dd57386e12f608fb7f4181b8433b960 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091313/day-life-auditor.asp | A Day In The Life Of An Auditor | A Day In The Life Of An Auditor
If you like the idea of examining and attesting to a company’s financial performance for a living, a career in auditing might be the right choice for you. To help you decide, we asked three auditors to talk about what a typical workday is like for them.
Eric Wolf, Audit Manager, Demetrius Berkower
Audit manager Eric Wolf works for Demetrius Berkower, a regional accounting and consulting firm with offices in New Jersey, Los Angeles, and the Cayman Islands. The firm provides accounting and auditing services to clients throughout the U.S. and has clients with annual revenues ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to more than $100 million.
Wolf is an audit manager in the firm’s hedge-fund practice, so most of his 30-plus clients are hedge funds and other investment companies.
Wolf previously worked as an audit supervisor specializing in audits of nonprofit and health-care companies at two other large accounting firms.
Key Takeaways An auditor's workday gets crazy during tax season, from January through April.The job often entails working with several companies, meetings across internal departments, or both.If you like auditing but want some variety on the job, you might consider a career as a CPA.
Wolf arrives in the office around 9:00 am and begins his day by reviewing email and organizing his priorities based on regulatory and client deadlines. After communicating with his clients to obtain any additional information he needs, he performs audit procedures. He delegates certain tasks to staff to ensure that the work is performed efficiently.
Hedge funds must be audited to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission and other agency regulations as well as to satisfy investors. The audit report provides an opinion that the fund’s financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects.
Wolf learns about the valuation of the fund’s investments and performs tests on them. He also examines the fees the hedge fund manager charges its investors and compares that amount to the amount described in the fund’s organizational documents.
Wolf participates in client meetings to discuss audit and tax work, industry happenings, and new accounting standards that are pertinent to the hedge fund industry and specifically to that client. The client updates Wolf and his colleagues on the hedge fund’s performance and other business matters.
Wolf also attends internal staff meetings to go over work status and discuss clients’ priorities. He has meetings with managers and partners to streamline internal processes and general documentation and to ensure that their audits are completed efficiently, effectively, and on time.
There are also frequent conference calls with potential hedge fund clients along with Maurice Berkower, the firm’s lead hedge fund partner. The discussion centers on the fund’s structure and trading strategy and on what services the fund's managers are looking for. Wolf provides biographies of the firm and of the partner and manager who will be working on the job. They also discuss various aspects of the audit and negotiate pricing.
Wolf says the culture at Demetrius Berkower is very friendly. Getting time off for vacation is no problem as long as he gives ample notice and communicates his work status to his colleagues so they can assist his clients while he is away.
Even while he is away, Wolf typically checks his email and voice mail. He works about 45 hours a week during the non-busy season, but from mid-January through April he typically works 11-plus-hour days and weekends.
During the busy period, much of the work overlaps with tax requirements, such as producing the hedge fund’s Schedule K-1 for its investors. Wolf does not prepare tax returns, but works closely with the tax department.
Wolf particularly enjoys having the opportunity to work with many companies at the same time and to get an overall picture of what they are doing. He says that every day offers something new and interesting.
Lindsey Graves, Senior Accountant, EisnerAmper
Lindsey Graves, a Certified Public Accountant, has been with EisnerAmper, an accounting, consulting and tax services firm, for four years.
Graves began as an intern, then took a full-time staff position after graduation. After two years, she was promoted to senior accountant in the firm’s hedge fund group.
EisnerAmper works with more than 1,000 hedge funds, private equity funds and other fund entities, as well as nearly 100 broker-dealers serving investment banks and retail brokerages.
If you like auditing but aren’t sure you want to dedicate your days to it exclusively, a career as a CPA offers some variety. In addition to working on hedge-fund audits, Graves provides tax accounting, bookkeeping, and fund services.
“Because I am involved with multiple groups, no two days are exactly the same,” she says.
The first thing Graves does when she comes into the office is to check her email and voice mail. As a senior staff member, she is usually the main contact for clients, so when she receives a request from them, she decides if it’s something she can handle herself, should delegate, or should seek a manager’s or partner’s guidance on.
She also responds to questions from the staff she supervises and completes requests from the managers and partners she works with.
Graves spends most of her day reviewing work prepared by staff. “This includes audit work papers and testing procedures, financial statements, tax work papers and completed returns, and various bookkeeping projects,” she says. “I also spend time answering any questions from the staff while they prepare the work mentioned above,” she adds.
She submits the reviewed work to her manager for another review and helps to finalize the audit or tax return and deliver it to the client. “I also serve as liaison between our team and the client when we have additional questions or items that need clarification,” she says.
Once a week, Graves assists her firm’s fund administration team with investor services. She reviews check runs twice a month and supervises month-end closing activities for two clients that her firm performs back-office bookkeeping for. “Once the month has been closed, I review GAAP financials prepared by the staff on the engagement and send these to the client and their investors,” she says. The financials are used for monthly budgeting and regulatory filings.
These financials are audited annually, and Graves is the main contact for the auditors, providing any reports or answers they need on the financials.
Graves typically works on about 15 audits and 30 tax returns each year. She says the variety keeps things interesting, with different issues and challenges from every client.
During tax season, Graves usually works from 7:30 am until 10:00 pm and comes into the office on Saturdays for about five hours. The rest of the year, she works from 7:30 am until 4:30 pm, which lets her have a personal life.
The off-season is a good time for vacation, and Graves is allowed eight weeks of paid time off per year.
Graves says that her colleagues who are audit seniors may spend 80% to 90% of their time on auditing work, she dedicates only about a third of her time to auditing.
Her auditing activities focus on testing existence and valuation for the securities her hedge-fund clients hold. She also tests investor capital activity and related party transactions such as management fees and the performance allocation paid to the general partner. She compares the percentages charged to each investor with those stated in the fund’s agreement to ensure their accuracy.
For her SEC-registered hedge-fund clients, she prepares the audited financial statements that the funds must file with the SEC within 120 days of year-end. These clients also use their audited financial statements to report to current investors and to inform potential new investors.
Daniel R. Montes, Internal Audit Manager, Large Retailer
Internal audit manager Daniel Montes has spent the last eight years as an auditor or consultant and has held many positions from associate to manager. He currently works for a large retailer as an internal auditor.
Montes describes his role as the person who helps you clean up your house before your parents come home. “Before the external auditors come for their annual review, internal audit spends a year testing controls to ensure operating effectiveness,” he says.
An internal auditor's job often requires collaboration with other departments and different levels of senior and executive management.
Internal auditors also have a greater ability than external auditors to perform operational assessments outside of finance, he adds.
Montes arrives at the office at 8:00 am and spends his first hour checking voice mail and email. From 9:00 am to 10:00 am, he meets with the audit director to go over departmental projects and news.
He delves into his projects starting at 10:00 am, which typically includes meeting with various departmental personnel to collaborate on solutions to problems and risks identified by management or his department.
In a typical day, the projects he works on might include process improvements, internal control identification and testing, reviews of policies and procedures, audit planning, external audit assistance, reviewing work papers, inventory counts, IT audits and, on rare occasions, fraud investigations.
Montes spends a lot of time on operational audits and reviews, which examine how things work and the risks involved in operations. These audits take a month or longer, and the end result is an audit report with recommendations for management’s consideration.
This work often requires significant collaboration with various departments and different levels of senior and executive management. “People in audit get such great exposure to the company as a whole,” Montes says. “This combined with face time with management can really help your career prospects.”
After an hour's lunch break, Montes spends two hours attending meetings similar to his morning meetings. Then from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, Montes digests and documents the information gathered during his meetings. “This is where MS Office skills are critical,” he says. “I spend a lot of time working on process flow, advanced data analytics, and writing reports.”
From 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm, he wraps up any open items and prepares for the following day.
In weekly meetings that last from half an hour to two hours, he updates his firm’s vice president and director on audit projects, their status, and any issues, risks or new projects. Twice a week, he attends change-control board meetings related to system and process changes for the company’s information technology general controls such as user access, security, and operations.
Any and all changes made to programs, systems, or procedures must be documented, tested and approved by a board of peers to mitigate risks related to unintended consequences of change, Montes explains. Possible changes might include code changes, hardware and software upgrades, new system implementations, and policy and procedure changes.
Quarterly, he prepares presentations to update executive management on change-control audits, which entail verification of development and testing activities, checking for requisite approvals throughout the process, and post-implementation reviews to ensure that all policies and procedures for change management have been adhered to.
Once a year, he works with external auditors for his firm’s annual audit. He assists in risk identification and in producing an audit plan.
Montes most enjoys his job’s problem-solving aspect. Identifying risks specific to his company and its different operational areas requires great collaborative and analytical skills, he says.
He works an average of 50 hours a week and says his company’s culture is fast-paced and high-performing.
As a relatively new employee, he gets 2.5 weeks of vacation.
|
71651d7a57dde54422e45d3c812129b9 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091415/career-advice-accounting-vs-law.asp | Accounting vs. Law: What's the Difference? | Accounting vs. Law: What's the Difference?
Accounting vs. Law: An Overview
Both accounting and law careers attract many college students because both of these fields offer strong income potential, upward mobility, and a multitude of career paths. Accountants can work for large firms doing public accounting, or they may perform internal auditing services for smaller, private companies. They can also prepare tax returns for individuals and businesses.
Law school graduates are flush with potential career paths as well. Many young attorneys prefer to go into fields such as criminal defense, personal injury law, and international law, although corporate law is also very popular because of the income potential.
An accounting career generally has less extensive educational requirements, but law tends to pay better.
Key Takeaways A career in accounting has fewer rigid educational requirements than a career in law. Becoming a lawyer requires a bachelor's degree plus law school, the equivalent of seven years of full-time study. On average, lawyers make more money than accountants, particularly right out of school. Attorneys require a broad base of skills that can vary depending on the field they enter.
Accounting
You can get an accounting job with a bachelor's degree or even less, but the "Big Four" accounting firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers) want Certified Public Accountant (CPA) candidates who are eligible to sit for the CPA exam. The "Big Four" is the nickname used to refer collectively to the four largest professional services networks in the world. In order to be eligible to sit for the CPA, candidates must have completed 150 hours of post-secondary education, which is more than a bachelor's degree (but it doesn't necessarily require completing a master's degree).
However, some colleges offer streamlined Master of Accountancy programs that allow you to bypass a bachelor's degree and receive the necessary credits for CPA eligibility in a minimum of four years.
Accountants must be skilled at working with numbers. The career is often stigmatized as being boring and a haven for the socially maladjusted, but many accounting fields require strong diplomacy skills. Public accountants spend the majority of their workweeks at various third-party client offices. These professionals must be capable of assimilating into diverse corporate cultures.
Law
Becoming a lawyer requires a bachelor's degree, plus law school—seven years of full-time study. Attorneys must also pass the bar exam in the state where they want to practice, while an accounting job doesn't necessarily require mandatory CPA certification.
Attorneys require a broad base of skills that can depend on the field they enter. Corporate law necessitates long hours and demanding job duties, and it requires a tireless work ethic. Trial lawyers must be eloquent and persuasive, and they must be able to think on their feet. You should have a keen understanding of various cultures and speak multiple languages if you want to practice international law.
Accounting vs. Law Example
On average, lawyers make more money than accountants right out of school. As of 2019, the starting range for Big Four accounting associates was $45,000 to $68,000. Meanwhile, the most recent data from the National Association for Law Placement's Associate Salary Survey revealed that the median salary for a first-year law associate was $155,000 in 2019.
Overall, lawyers can expect to earn a median salary of about $122,960, according to the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. Half earn more than that, and half earn less. Comparatively, accountants earn a median salary of just $71,550. Many young accountants and attorneys blaze their own career paths and, as a result, they're not confined to the salary ranges of the big firms.
Many accountants and attorneys who go into private practice struggle at first until they build a client base, but can be earning a six-figure salary within the first year.
According to the BLS, the number of accounting jobs is expected to grow by 6% between 2018 and 2028. This estimate includes auditor jobs as well.
The expected job growth rate for lawyers between 2018 and 2028 is also 6%, according to the BLS. The biggest problem for the field of law is supply and demand. For decades, a law degree was considered a guaranteed ticket to a high-paying career. As a result, law school enrollment soared, producing a huge number of law school graduates that, at times, have struggled to find job placements.
Special Considerations
The "Big Four" accounting firms and corporate law positions require long workdays, few full weekends off, and even less vacation time. The work schedule can lighten as you gain seniority, but the first few years can be difficult. The burnout rate is high for new associates in both fields as a result.
You can have a career in accounting or law without it taking over your life, but these jobs pay nowhere near the salaries you can make working for a "Big Four" accounting firm or a corporate law firm. Government jobs offer 40-hour workweeks and excellent benefits but pay significantly lower salaries.
|
80bee9a19425d3eb7bd7f9a55dca18c6 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091515/career-advice-financial-analyst-vsfinancial-consultant.asp | Financial Analyst vs. Financial Consultant Careers | Financial Analyst vs. Financial Consultant Careers
Financial Analysts vs. Financial Consultants: An Overview
At first glance, financial analysts and financial consultants perform very similar jobs. Both acts as experts in financial, economic, and investment matters, and both help other professionals make more informed money decisions. Dig a little deeper, though, and you'll see that analysts and consultants focus on different things and enjoy very different work schedules.
Key Takeaways Financial analysts research other company's financial statements, market trends, tax returns, and investments. Financial consultants are outside contractors who work to provide advice and improve the financial condition of an individual company. While financial consultants have potentially greater incomes, financial analysts may enjoy a greater degree of work/life balance.
Financial Analyst
A financial analyst often works for an investment bank or asset manager. They examine financial and nonfinancial information, micro and macroeconomic data, and other variables to evaluate the financial health of a company. They frequently use this analysis to make a recommendation about the company that they analyze, such as to buy or sell a stock.
Analysts should be comfortable working within a team-focused environment. Most start out at a junior level and assist a senior team member while gaining work experience.
Financial Consultant
While financial analysts focus on evaluating external companies, financial consultants provide internally-focused financial advice to corporations. A financial consultant helps a business increase shareholder value and improve capital efficiency. Their job may be to help put a mergers and acquisitions (M&As) package together or design a compensation strategy for company executives. Many consultants work within the corporate finance division of a business. Others may work independently or within third-party consulting firms.
It is also important to note that many personal financial advisors refer to themselves as "financial consultants." These consultants focus on individuals, not businesses, and are not the kinds of consultants addressed here.
What Type of Education and Skills Are Needed?
A lot of analysts and consultants study economics or finance in undergraduate school, and many go on to earn MBAs. Many began their careers in banking or working with financial advising firms.
Consultants come from a variety of career paths, but there are two broad types of consultant backgrounds. A contractor usually works independently and on short-term projects for much of his early professional life. Other consultants have joined a consulting firm; this type tends to be older and is able to lean back on a network of prior professional connections.
Each career path lends itself nicely to a reputable financial certification. After a consultant has three years of full-time business experience, along with at least a bachelor's degree, they may be eligible to enroll in a course for the Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) designation, which requires nine college-level courses or 27 hours of college credit in the field.
Similarly, investment analysts frequently pursue a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. In order to become a CFA candidate and enroll in the first of three exams, applicants must either have a bachelor's degree or be in the last year of a bachelor's degree program. Alternatively, applicants can have four years of applicable work experience or a combination of work experience and education. In order to receive the CFA designation, the applicant must pass all three levels of the exam and have at least four years of applicable work experience.
What Types of Jobs Are Available?
Analysts are often divided into buy-side or sell-side positions, or else they work for large banks. A buy-side analyst researches investments for his firm, often for an in-house fund. A sell-side analyst provides research and makes recommendations (often to buy-side firms) or works to help promote certain investments.
An investment banking analyst is a different kind of job entirely. These analysts use models and predictive forecasts in support of senior partners for venture capital deals, stock valuations, or other institutional decisions. Some even act like financial consultants and make recommendations for initial public offerings (IPOs) or M&A transactions.
Independent consultants tend to have variable income. However, the most lucrative independent consultants are normally former high-ranking financial professionals who, late in their careers, decided to offer advice to other businesses in their field.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) periodically releases a jobs report called the Occupational Outlook Handbook. In this report, the BLS outlines the average salary, required experience, and projected future demand for any number of common jobs in the United States.
According to the BLS handbook, there were 329,500 financial analysts in the U.S. in 2018, and the industry was expected to add an additional 20,300 by 2028. This is a projected 6% growth rate. As of this BLS report, the average salary is $85,660 per year.
The BLS did not release specific figures for financial consultants, probably because of the vague and generic nature of the job title. However, the BLS notes that business and financial occupations are expected to increase more quickly than the average.
Comparing Work/Life Balance
Except at the most senior levels, financial analysts tend to work standard 40- to 50-hour weeks, with time off during the weekends and normal vacation packages. The hours on the job tend to be very busy and even intense, but there is still ample time left over during the week for family, friends, and recreation.
This is rarely the case with financial consultants, particularly those who work for major firms as associates. Many junior-level consultants report working 65 hours a week or longer, which means 11+ hour days and a six-day workweek. Consultants also tend to travel a lot and experience extended time away from home. It's not uncommon for young consultants to make six figures but actually earn less than $30 an hour.
Overall, the financial industry is well-known (even infamous) for its long hours and rigorous job demands. There is some evidence that major financial institutions are trying to curb workloads and reduce burnout among their employees, but most aspiring financial professionals should be prepared for many extra hours at their workstations.
Choosing Between Careers
An aspiring financial professional who is torn between a career as a financial analyst and one as a financial consultant should focus on the two areas where these careers are most distinct.
1. Work/life balance and compensation: Broadly speaking, financial consultants have a greater earning potential, but they also tend to work longer hours and spend more time away on business travel. Financial analysts tend to have steadier jobs and less stressful careers.
2. The type of investment analysis that each job performs: Big-picture thinkers who want to perform research at a macro-level find it more suitable to work as analysts. On the other hand, those who love company fundamentals and capital management probably feel more at home in consultancy roles.
|
51153faec6a85537c44a4332d5cdb236 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091515/career-advice-investment-banking-vs-law.asp | Investment Banking vs. Law: What's the Difference? | Investment Banking vs. Law: What's the Difference?
Investment Banking vs. Law: An Overview
Investment banking and law are popular career paths for ambitious young people who want the chance to pull in a good salary right out of university. Because these career paths draw from the same broad talent pool, many students face initial difficulty choosing between the two.
On one hand, investment banking requires fewer years of school, which, for many students, translates to less student debt. On the other hand, the law is a broader field, and the paths available to young attorneys are greater in number than those for investment bankers.
Key Takeaways Of the two careers, investment banking requires greater quantitative acumen and skills in math.The educational requirements for becoming a lawyer are much more rigid than those for becoming an investment banker.Employment in both law and investment banking are projected to grow between 2016 and 2026, according to the BLS.
Investment Banking
Investment banking has fewer hard-and-fast educational requirements. Most firms, however, require, at a minimum, a four-year degree. Investment banks recruit almost exclusively from top-rated universities, such as Ivy League schools and the University of Chicago. Students who wish to become investment bankers but attend less prestigious schools can better their chances by getting a Master of Business Administration (MBA), preferably from an elite program.
Investment banking and law require many of the same skills, such as a strong work ethic. Rookies in either field can expect to face long hours and demanding superiors during their first few years. The first-year turnover is high for these reasons. But stick it out and the rewards down the road can be immense.
Undergraduates who want to start making money right away without having to spend three years in law school and accumulate more student debt should gravitate toward investment banking. This is particularly true if you are skilled in math. If your school is not considered elite, getting a foot in the door is difficult. Obtaining an MBA helps your chances significantly.
Of the two career paths, investment banking requires greater quantitative acumen. Math whizzes and those who love numbers should go in this direction. If you struggle with math and frequently make mistakes when computing large figures, tread with caution. Careless mistakes in the investment banking world cost companies billions—and they sometimes cost investment bankers their jobs.
Law
The educational requirements for becoming a lawyer are much more rigid than those for becoming an investment banker. An aspiring attorney must complete a bachelor's degree and then attend law school—there is no way around that. Attaining a law degree, for the vast majority of students, requires at least seven years of post-secondary education.
Following law school, you must pass your state's bar exam before you can practice law. While the test can be intimidating, the pass rate on the first try was 69 percent in 2018, the most recent figures as of April 2020, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners.
Bright students who have prepared sufficiently should sit for the test with the confidence they are going to pass. Because the law is such a broad field, the skills required vary based on the type of law you practice. Trial lawyers need to be persuasive, aggressive, high-energy, and quick-witted. Successful corporate attorneys are focused, detail-oriented, and exceptional critical thinkers. Practicing international law requires being bilingual or multilingual, as well as the ability to understand and assimilate into various cultures.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), employment of lawyers is projected to grow six percent between 2018 and 2028, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Law is a great choice for students open to furthering their education and desiring more paths when starting their careers.
Getting into law school does not require an undergraduate degree from an elite school; it is more important to have a strong GPA and to perform well on the LSAT.
Corporate Law vs. Investment Banking Example
Expect work to dominate the first few years of your life in either career. Investment bankers work, on average, 70 to 90 hours per week during their first year. This includes almost every Saturday and many Sundays. Vacation days are few, and leaving the office at 5:00 p.m. is a fantasy. Though work hours become more manageable as you build seniority, investment banking is never a 9-to-5 gig.
Corporate law follows a similar schedule, with long hours and a lot of weekend work. The field of law, being broad, features career paths with more traditional 40-hour workweeks, such as working in the local public defender's office. These jobs, however, pay nowhere near the lucrative starting salaries that you find in corporate law.
Special Considerations
Investment bankers make a lot of money right out of school with a bachelor's degree. As of 2020, a first-year analyst makes between $70,000 and $150,000 a year, according to Wall Street Oasis, thanks in large part to aggressive bonus structures almost all firms pay; the average salary is $88,000 and the average bonus is $39,000. The better you are at your job, the more you make as an investment banker.
The starting salary for an attorney runs a broad gamut based on the field of law. Corporate law is regarded as the most lucrative, particularly for new associates, who, as of 2019, the most recent figures as of April 2020, earned a median $155,000 salary during the first year out of law school, according to the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).
Where you fall within this spectrum depends in large part on the firm and the region of the country in which you work. For instance, the NALP stated in 2019, the most recent figures as of February 2019, that first-year lawyers in markets such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., could make $190,000 a year.
For young attorneys who eschew the corporate law path, starting salary is more difficult to pinpoint. Trial lawyers, for example, can earn six figures their first year if they develop a stellar reputation quickly and have an expansive warm market. Others take much longer to build a client base and struggle to pay the bills at first.
Employment of securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents, which is the category the BLS places investment bankers under, is projected to grow four percent from 2018 to 2028, slightly below the average for all occupations. However, the BLS noted: "Services that investment bankers provide, such as helping with initial public offerings and mergers and acquisitions, will continue to be in demand as the economy grows."
|
f036e405575237b04bda1f640ca4a715 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091714/top-5-skills-investment-banker-needs.asp | The Top 5 Skills an Investment Banker Needs | The Top 5 Skills an Investment Banker Needs
Careers in finance can be extremely rewarding, exciting, and lucrative, but also high pressured, demanding and nerve-wracking. Because of the confluence of emotional and mental aspects required for these careers, investment firms often look for specific skills and characteristics in potential employees. There are various roles in investment firms, but one of the highest profile and most sought after is investment banking. Investment bankers facilitate transactions between two firms (like mergers or acquisitions) or between the firm and the market (think IPOs), or within a firm (helping to establish business plans). These varied roles influence the types of skills investment bankers need to possess – many of which are tangible and measurable but some of which are intangible.
Investment bankers facilitate transactions between two firms (like mergers or acquisitions) or between the firm and the market (think IPOs), or within a firm (helping to establish business plans).
Top Five Skills
Many characteristics that firms look for in potential employees are obvious but others are surprising; within each, there are nuances that are difficult to quantify that may make one person more geared toward an investment banking career than someone with a similar skill set. We’ve put together a list of the top five skills that an investment banker needs to characterize and areas of study that may aid in the acquisition of the skills.
Intellect: This is perhaps the most obvious characteristic. A strong intellect with particular emphasis on analytics, mathematics, finances, and economics goes a long way toward performing many of the job requirements. But it goes beyond these basic core competencies. Investment banking also requires an intellectual curiosity such that you not only perform and understanding your silo of work, but you branch out to understand how a colleague’s work or other factors fit into the overall puzzle. Investment bankers possess a desire to solve complex problems and to create new and innovative solutions. Areas of study that often drive the intellectual skills and propel this type of problem-solving and curiosity tend to focus on mathematics, science, such as physics, economics, engineering and finance/accounting, as well as post-graduate certificate programs like the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA). Discipline: News outlets often report on the high salaries of investment bankers but little is told about the long hours, hard work, diligence and self-discipline that goes into those high rewards. Investment bankers, from the entry-level analyst to the top level managing director, work in a pressure cooker environment and because of that, need to be able to perform under intense scrutiny and demands. These traits are often innate, but can also be learned throughout life in numerous ways, such as by subscribing to and accomplishing a demanding task, like graduating law or medical school, or through athletic accomplishments like performing on a collegiate sports team. Entrepreneurial: Interestingly, with all the rigor and structure in investment banking, the ability to be creative and innovation is an extremely highly regarded skill. The top-performing bankers are able to approach a task or provide a solution in a way that may be new, pioneering an avenue for products and services. There is an intangible characteristic that compels individuals to approach a situation from a different angle, and while this may be reinforced by academics, it is often instinctive. University classes, such as entrepreneurial business classes, as well as some science and social science classes, can provide a foundation for more innovative thinking. Global: We know the world is more globally connected and business is no different. Broad-mindedness, which opens the door to a deeper understanding of culture and societies, expands the ability to work with and for international businesses. Combining that knowledge and understanding with an ability to communicate in more than one language is an added and sought after skill in investment banking. Academics concentrating on sociology, anthropology, and complemented by advanced linguistic skills (i.e. becoming fluent in a second language like German or Mandarin) are desired skills. A good example is participating in study abroad programs, which promotes these types of skills. Relationship Building: This final skill is perhaps the most intangible but considered to be one of utmost importance, particularly as investment bankers climb the career ladder. Social and relationship building skills, such as being able to deal with difficult people in extreme situations, having high energy and a positive attitude that exudes power but also an “I understand your needs” attitude and developing and maintaining client relationships are characteristics that bankers must possess in order to be successful. At the end of the day, investment banks make money based on the amount of fees they get paid by clients. So a strong set of interpersonal skills goes a long way in acquiring and keeping clients.
1:40 The Top 5 Skills an Investment Banker Needs
The Bottom Line
Investment banking takes a certain personality and a specific skill set – much of which can be taught and learned in universities, but some of which is intangible and/or inherent. In addition to these learned and natural skills, investment banking takes someone who strives for, commits to and hungers to learn and perform at the top echelon in a challenging environment.
|
c58a90019a126a6b002d5d995f07875c | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/091715/career-advice-accounting-vs-bookkeeping.asp | Career Advice: Accounting Vs. Bookkeeping | Career Advice: Accounting Vs. Bookkeeping
The distinctions between accounting and bookkeeping are subtle yet important to understand when considering a career in either field. Bookkeepers record the day-to-day financial transactions of a business. There are a lot of minutiae involved, and keen attention to detail is paramount. Accountants, by contrast, focus more on the big picture. At specified intervals, they review and analyze the financial information recorded by bookkeepers and use it to conduct audits, generate financial statements and forecast future business needs.
The two careers are similar and accountants and bookkeepers often work side by side. These careers require many of the same skills and attributes. However, important differences exist in the nature of work conducted in each career and what is required to be successful. The following analysis compares the education requirements, skills needed, typical starting salaries and job outlooks for accounting and bookkeeping.
Key Takeaways Although they are job titles used interchangeably, bookkeepers and accountants are different positions with different requirements.Bookkeeping is where accountants generally start their careers as the barriers to entry are lower and pay is decent.Accountants, though not formally required to do so, traditionally acquire their CPA certification as well as their Master's degrees.Bookkeepers can be considered as the ones who line up all the small pieces into place where accountants view and arrange those pieces.
Required Education
Neither accounting nor bookkeeping imposes hard-and-fast educational requirements. You can find plenty of bookkeepers and even some accountants who have no further education than a high school diploma. Unlike careers such as law and medicine, in which state licensing boards determine how much education you need, with accounting and bookkeeping, the companies doing the hiring decide what to require of candidates.
That said, landing an accounting job requires, in most cases, more education than becoming a bookkeeper. In the 21st century, most accountants hold bachelor's degrees. Many hold advanced degrees, such as MBAs with accounting or finance concentrations, or they have Master of Accountancy degrees. To sit for the Certified Public Accountant, or CPA exam, which is a common goal of many accountants, you must have a minimum of 150 postsecondary education hours. This is a bachelor's degree plus 30 hours of graduate work; most CPA candidates go ahead and finish their master's degrees.
You can become a bookkeeper right out of high school if you prove you are good with numbers and have strong attention to detail. In fact, many aspiring accountants work as bookkeepers to get a foot in the door while still in school. Additionally, bookkeepers who excel at their jobs are sometimes promoted to accounting positions, even if they lack the level of education the company typically prefers.
Skills Needed
Accountants and bookkeepers work with numbers all day long. Therefore, those who do not like math, get confused easily when making simple calculations or are generally averse to number crunching should not apply.
Speaking of number crunching, that job duty is actually more common to bookkeeping than to accounting. Companies task bookkeepers with tasks such as recording journal entries and conducting bank reconciliations. As a bookkeeper, your attention to detail must be almost preternatural. Careless mistakes that seem inconsequential at the time can lead to bigger, costlier, more time-consuming problems down the road. You must be able to multitask. Rarely does a bookkeeper work on one big project for an eight-hour shift; rather, a typical workday involves juggling five or six smaller jobs.
As an accountant, you also have to crunch numbers, but it is much more important to possess sharp logic skills and big-picture, problem-solving abilities. While bookkeepers make sure the small pieces fit properly into place, accountants use those small pieces to draw much bigger and broader conclusions.
Starting Salaries
Both careers, accounting in particular, cover a broad gamut of starting salaries. How much you make as a first-year accountant depends in large part on the specific career path you pursue. While accounting can be a lucrative long-term career, most accountants, unlike corporate attorneys or investment bankers, do not command huge salaries during the first few years.
Public accounting generally pays the most to a candidate right out of school. In particular, the Big Four firms of Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers offer larger salaries than mid-size and small firms. Depending on the city, you can expect to earn between $50,000 and $60,000 your first year as a Big Four accountant.
Mid-size and small public accounting firms pay, on average, about 10% less than the Big Four. If you choose to work for a company internally instead of doing public accounting, the starting salary range is very broad. In most cases, private companies do not pay more than the Big Four for young accountants with little experience.
Bookkeepers often get paid hourly wages rather than annual salaries. The average wage for someone new to the business is around $19-20 per hour. This is the equivalent of around $40,000 per year, assuming a 40-hour workweek. The advantage of hourly pay is you receive 1.5 times your normal wage for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. In bookkeeping, extra hours are common during the busy season of January to April.
Job Outlook
Like most fields, accounting and bookkeeping suffered contraction during The Great Recession. They have recovered nicely, however, with economists forecasting job growth of 13% through 2022 for the broader field of accounting, which includes bookkeeping. This is slightly higher than the overall growth rate that considers all fields.
Bookkeeping faces a specific challenge similar to switchboard operating, word processing and other fields in which software programs can perform many jobs humans once did. While technology has reduced demand for workers to conduct the most trivial bookkeeping tasks, it has also increased the need for more skilled workers who can operate this technology efficiently while offering benefits programs cannot.
Which One to Choose?
For a long-term career, accounting offers much more upward mobility and income potential. The education required to be competitive in the field is greater, but the payoff down the road can be considerably higher. That said, bookkeeping is a great starting point if you are interested in the field but not fully committed and want to test the waters.
You may also be an ideal bookkeeping candidate if you want a good job with a respectable wage and decent security but may not be looking for a long-term career. Bookkeeping offers much lower barriers to entry, and the competition you face in the job search is less fierce.
|
2abc03e88fa501b9e39f04ddf0319aaf | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092115/career-advice-financial-analyst-vsactuary.asp | Financial Analyst vs. Actuary: What's the Difference? | Financial Analyst vs. Actuary: What's the Difference?
Financial Analyst vs. Actuary: An Overview
The financial sector is full of careers for analytical individuals; perhaps no two jobs exemplify this more than the financial analyst and the actuary. These are good careers for those who love math, statistics, charts, and models, and those who can dive into a subject and pick apart its complexities.
Actuaries are the unsung heroes of the insurance industry, which makes them unsung heroes of the medical industry, mortgage industry, car industry, and every other industry where insurance coverage plays a prominent role. They are responsible for compiling and analyzing statistics about risks and the individuals who are exposed to risk.
There are actuaries who work in other industries. Some large financial institutions, particularly lenders, employ actuaries to assess risks on loan products. Actuaries can be used to measure the potential for loss in an investment portfolio, which directly crosses over into the realm of financial analysis.
Financial analysts serve as experts for businesses and investors on a wide variety of subjects, such as economics, markets, investments, regulations, taxes, or corporate governance. The fundamental role of a financial analyst is to provide accurate information to others and to make recommendations based on that information. Corporations, private companies, public agencies, defense contractors, and nonprofits all employ financial analysts.
Key Takeaways Being a financial analyst or actuary is a good career for those who love math, statistics, charts, and models, and those who can dive into a subject and pick apart its complexities. Most actuaries work fewer than 45 hours a week after receiving their certifications. The average financial analyst works between 40 and 50 hours per week, receives more than 20 days of paid vacation every year, and is not forced to work holidays.
Both careers are here to stay. Financial analysts are expected to thrive in a business environment because regulations are becoming more onerous and financial markets are growing more complex. There is almost always a shortage of actuaries in the U.S., and both careers can expect average or above-average job growth until 2028.
Financial Analyst
Since there are many different kinds of financial analysts (buy-side, sell-side, institutional, industry-specific, corporate, private, and so on), there is no defined career path or set of necessary skills to become one. Every financial analyst should be gifted at analytical problem-solving and have the ability to communicate effectively to non-experts, but there are relatively few additional hard-and-fast requirements.
Common areas of study for financial analysts include finance, economics, statistics, accounting, mathematics, or other business-related fields. Many financial analysts eventually pursue other professional designations, such as the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designations. Some financial analysts have advanced degrees, such as an MBA.
Actuary
There are comparatively few actuaries in the United States. Actuarial work—which involves long hours of dedicated analysis and statistical modeling—appeals to a relatively small subset of the population. Another key reason, however, is that actuaries are forced to spend several years passing a series of rigorous certification exams before most companies will consider them.
Aspiring actuaries are encouraged to pursue an undergraduate degree in a field such as mathematics, statistics, or actuarial science. Other strong analytic and mathematical fields include economics, physics, and accounting.
After receiving a degree, actuaries become licensed through one of two professional associations: the Society of Actuaries (SOA) or the smaller Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS). There is no federal law requiring an actuary to be licensed, but very few employers consider hiring applicants without these credentials. Most actuaries spend between four and seven years in pursuit of full licensure.
Without actuaries, insurance providers would have no idea how to price their products, how many individuals or businesses to insure, or what kinds of liabilities should be covered.
Key Differences
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median salary for an actuary in the U.S. is $108,350 as of 2019, though aspirants are unlikely to earn near the median salary unless they are credentialed by the CAS or SOA. The BLS expected an additional 20 percent increase in actuarial positions over the subsequent decade, much faster than the average for all occupations.
There are fewer than 30,000 actuaries in the U.S. There aren't many licensed actuaries to go around, so businesses really have to compete to hire good people.
As of 2018, the median salary for financial analysts is $85,660. The BLS has estimated that financial analyst positions will increase by 6 percent between 2018 and 2028, or as fast as average overall job growth.
Special Considerations
The average financial analyst works between 40 and 50 hours per week, receives more than 20 days of paid vacation every year, and is not forced to work holidays. Unlike many of their compatriots on Wall Street, financial analysts are not generally expected to dedicate their entire lives to their work.
Actuaries spend even less time at the office than financial analysts do. Most actuaries work fewer than 45 hours a week after receiving their certifications. Actuaries who are still pursuing their credentials can expect to spend an additional 15 to 30 hours a week studying for their exams.
Some actuaries in the investment banking world may work more than 50 hours a week and may also be expected to travel often to meet with clients. Financial analysts who work for investment banks often do so as well.
Financial analysts don't receive the same kinds of accolades about job desirability, but this career is a better fit for people who like the Wall Street environment, who like working in support of multiple teams, and who may eventually want to move into another financial career, such as investment banking or private equity.
|
a45f1356512ed8c9e068d65a1108377f | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092215/6-best-financial-advisors-san-francisco.asp | The 6 Best Financial Advisors in San Francisco | The 6 Best Financial Advisors in San Francisco
Financial advisors should be able to offer multiple services: financial planning, retirement advice and asset management. Finding one that is proficient in all these areas is tough, especially if you want someone local, as – despite the rise of robo-advisors – many people do. For those living in the San Francisco environs, here are six of the best. All are independent firms working on a fee-only basis, which means they don't receive commissions or third-party compensation on any products they sell or invest clients' funds in.
Bell Investment Advisors
Based in Oakland, Calif., Bell Investment Advisors a fiduciary registered investment advisor. The firm has been in business since 1991, providing its clients with a long track record of success.
While the company offers basic services, such as investment management and financial planning, it has a unique value proposition that offers its clients life coaching services. Taking a holistic approach to client management, the company is an actively managed advisory and constantly monitors its clients' investments.
BOS (Bingham, Osborn and Scarborough)
BOS was founded in the 1980s as Bingham, Osborn and Scarborough. The company was one of the first to offer an integrated advisory model, which takes all aspects of an individual's financial situation into account to provide a customized service. The company is focused on advancing its value proposition it offers to its clients. One unique service: The BOS Foundation, a non-profit through which clients can open donor-advised accounts, managed by BOS, that yield charitable gift tax deductions.
Financial Connections
Financial Connections has a track record of helping clients going back to 1994. The company started out in investment management, but it has since expanded its operations to offer financial planning and tax services. It has three offices throughout the Bay Area.
The company uses TD Ameritrade to hold all of its clients' assets in trust. The company's principals and key employees have received industry-recognized designations. Socially responsible investing is one of the firm's specialties.
Marin Wealth Advisors
As its name implies, Marin Wealth Advisors is based in Marin County (San Rafael, to be exact), but it services clients all over Napa and Sonoma counties and the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
Marin Wealth Advisors boasts a team of financial professionals that have vast experience in the financial planning, advisory and investment management business. Similar to many fee-only firms, Marin charges clients a value-based asset fee for investment management services and an hourly fee for financial planning advice.
Morling Financial Advisors
Morling Financial Advisors is a boutique registered investment advisor that specializes in delivering comprehensive financial planning, investment advice and investment management services to clients throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The company has deep roots in the region, with origins dating back to 1981.
Morling Financial Advisors has done a good job of continuously evolving. The company began as a tax and accounting firm, adding investment advice and financial planning in 1999, and then finally offering investment management services in 2007. The company uses TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab as its custodians and for research and brokerage services.
Mosaic Financial Partners/Private Ocean
Mosaic Financial Partners was founded in 1987 as Boone & Associates. It is well-known for staying on the forefront of financial thought, being one of the first advisories to offer exchange-traded funds (ETFs), alternative investments and customized investment strategies to its clients. The firm uses a six-step planning process to give its clients a holistic view of their finances.
In October 2018, Mosaic became part of Private Ocean, a San Rafael-based financial advisory that itself was born out of a merger between two venerable San Francisco wealth management firms (one of which once employed Norman Boone, Mosaic's founder). While Mosaic retains its two original offices in San Francisco and Walnut Creek, it now operates under the Private Ocean name.
|
a34e2507b9f9a338b89b758232de0431 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092415/career-advice-financial-analyst-vsresearch-analyst.asp | Financial Analyst vs. Research Analyst: What's the Difference? | Financial Analyst vs. Research Analyst: What's the Difference?
Financial Analyst vs. Research Analyst: An Overview
Financial analysts examine, collect, and interpret financial information to help companies make business decisions. Financial analysis is an umbrella term that covers several functions that financial analysts might perform.
Some financial analysts analyze financial market trends to help with an investment decision while others examine financial statements of companies to help pinpoint a specific company's investment potential.
A research analyst is someone who typically performs investigative analysis, which can involve finding financial information, examining, interpreting, and reporting on the data collected.
Research analyst roles can vary whereby an analyst might perform equity analysis for stock investing, market research for launching a new product line or analyze and rate bonds or debt instruments.
Below, we'll explore the differences between a financial analyst and a research analyst as well as the potential employment opportunities and salaries.
Key Takeaways Financial analysts examine, collect, and interpret financial information to help companies make business decisions. Financial analysts analyze financial market trends to help with an investment decision while others examine financial statements of companies to identify an investment's potential. A research analyst performs investigative analysis, which can involve finding financial information, examining, interpreting, and reporting on the data collected.
Financial Analysts
A common role of financial analysts involves analyzing investments and their market performances. They rely on fundamental analysis to determine a company's value or its investment opportunity. The detailed process might include analyzing a company's profitability, revenue, earnings, sales, and outstanding debt.
Financial ratios are used to interpret the data, which help compare a company's data to other companies within the same industry. Financial analysis involves the heavy use of accounting and many hours reviewing and interpreting a company's financial statements such as the balance sheet and income statement.
Financial analysts collect and analyze data but always within the context of a prior deductive understanding of how markets should function. Financial analysts must also understand economic principles and be able to create written reports of their interpretations and make recommendations. In short, financial analysts are usually behind-the-scenes experts.
Financial analysts are also employed outside the investment world. For example, banks provide credit to companies called commercial lending. Before a bank can lend money to a company, they must analyze a company's financial statements and its ability to pay back a loan. Financial analysts help to break down a company's financial situation and report on it to the underwriters making the credit decision. Although the thinking behind financial analysis is systemic, it's also subjective.
Education
Financial analysts tend to be a more specialized role than research analysts, but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge variety of them as well. Almost all financial analysts start out with at least a bachelor's degree in finance, economics, mathematics, or accounting. Many employers prefer a candidate have some form of professional certification, such as a chartered financial analyst (CFA) designation or a master of business administration (MBA).
If a financial analyst performs investment advisory services, such as recommending stocks, bonds, or insurance products, then the appropriate professional licenses will be necessary. These licenses can include the Series 7 or Series 65 exams or state exams for life insurance and health insurance licenses.
If a financial analyst is involved in corporate finance for a company, or in the banking industry, there may be additional training. For example, commercial credit training is typically needed for FAs to be able to analyze companies for credit approval at a major bank.
Salary
The 2018 median pay for financial analysts was $85,660, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics or BLS. Top financial analysts for major investment firms can earn certainly the more than the stated average, while entry-level analysts for smaller companies can expect $45,000 to $50,000 in compensation.
Occupational Outlook
The BLS is bullish on future job prospects for financial analysts. It predicts an 11% growth in financial analyst jobs in the ten years from 2016 and 2026—on par with the financial industry as a whole and a little faster than expectations for the broader economy.
Research Analysts
Research analysts tend to be more data crunchers than financial analysts. Research analysts can also be used in determining an investment's valuation or the value of an asset. These analysts can work on market research to spot trends but can also work as equity analysts to prepare reports for buy or sell recommendations.
Research analysts tend to focus more on mathematical models to produce objective answers about historical data. A research analyst can take a series of inputs, and calculate the most efficient way to maximize output. Research analysts are used to help improve a company's operations through advanced mathematical and analytical methods. These analysts help businesses investigate and solve complex problems, and allow the companies to make better business decisions.
A subset of research analysts is the market research analyst, who breaks down what consumer data says about a product, service, or the market. Market research analysts often examine the potential market for a product's success. They interpret client data and customer trends with the goal of helping companies understand what consumers are buying, at what price, and what they're not buying.
Also, market research analysts are employed in the investment industry to analyze the overall financial market trends for equity and bond markets. As a result, the role can require a great deal of statistical knowledge, computer skills, and a solid understanding of economics.
Education
Research analysts can be found everywhere and in any industry, not just the financial sector. Nearly any academic background could viably serve a prospective researcher, as long as the researcher has the requisite technical, mathematical, and analytical skills.
Salary
The 2018 median pay for operations research analysts, which is more of a mathematical role, was $83,390 per year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics or BLS. The median salary for market research analysts, which is more of a product and sales role, was $63,120 per year in 2018.
Investment research analysts can earn more than $100,000 at major banks, but more representative salaries for other research analysts tend to fall between $50,000 and $70,000 per year.
Occupational Outlook
Research analysts can take on a variety of roles working for corporations, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies, and brokerages.
BLS job outlook statistics are even rosier for research analysts than financial analysts. The agency projected growth from 2016 to 2026 to be 23% for market research analysts and 27% for operations research analysts.
Special Considerations: Work-Life Balance
Finding a proper work-life balance can be difficult in any industry, but the financial industry has had a reputation of making employees work late and missing family time, particularly for those who work on Wall Street.
Recent research suggests that approximately one-third of financial analysts report working more than 70 hours per week, but 50 hours per week is far more common. Market research analysts work similar hours, if not fewer.
These jobs aren't as demanding (and don't pay as much) as private equity jobs or investment banking jobs. It's standard for an analyst to receive 20 or more days a year in paid time off, at least one day off on weekends, and time out of the office on holidays.
Work hours tend to increase as an analyst's work draws closer and closer to New York, London, or Tokyo. Investment bankers and other high-level financial professionals rely on analysts for support.
While the expected growth rate for research analyst positions appears to be higher, financial analysts start out making a higher median salary and might have more room to advance within the financial world. Both roles involve the analysis and interpretation of data, trends, and a sound understanding of math and finance. (For related reading, see "Financial Analyst: Career Path & Qualifications")
|
0bf0a08f733fc5428ec8652d2d6906a9 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092515/career-advice-investment-banking-vswealth-management.asp | Investment Banking vs. Wealth Management: What's the Difference? | Investment Banking vs. Wealth Management: What's the Difference?
Investment Banking vs. Wealth Management: An Overview
Wealth management and investment banking are two of the most popular career choices within the financial sector. While there is a significant amount of overlap and interaction between these fields, the two jobs are distinctly different.
An investment banker mainly offers financial services and advice to corporate entities, rather than to individuals. Investment banking is the area of the financial sector that handles mergers and acquisitions (M&A), business restructuring, spinoffs, stock splits, share buybacks, initial public offerings (IPOs), and secondary stock issues or bond issues. In addition, investment bankers may handle the short-term investments of their corporate clients.
Key Takeaways Investment bankers are likely to work longer hours and draw somewhat larger paychecks. Wealth management is focused more on personal service of individuals, while investment banking clients are primarily corporations. There is frequently some overlap between the operations of investment bankers and wealth management firms. High net worth individuals who are clients of wealth management companies are often business owners who are likely to want advice from the field of investment banking regarding business restructuring or possible M&As and may want access to investment banking products, such as IPOs or bond issues.
Investment Banking
The best investment bankers excel at managing businesses' finances and persuasively negotiating complex multi-billion-dollar deals. They are adept at leveraged buyouts and at helping clients resist attempted hostile takeovers. Investment banking can provide considerable excitement from time to time, but also consists of periods of relative inaction.
Investment bankers must be able to understand the important industry-specific factors that drive the success or failure of a business. While market analysts are experts are evaluating stocks, investment bankers must be experts at the fundamental evaluation of businesses.
In addition to having a solid head for numbers and basic accounting, investment bankers must also be able to think creatively to devise the best possible means of arranging financing and structuring business deals.
In terms of the actual functions within investment banking and the job responsibilities of investment bankers, there are two types of investment banker positions: account managers and operations specialists. Account managers act in the lead position of developing and maintaining relationships with clients and seeing that their needs are properly met. Operations specialists execute investment banking services, such as an IPO or stock buyback.
Wealth Management
The field of wealth management is concerned with providing financial services primarily for high net worth individuals and ultra high net worth individuals, although less wealthy people sometimes seek wealth management services, too. There are wealth managers who work with individuals who hold assets anywhere from $50,000 to $500,00, and others who prefer to work with high net worth clients and handle millions.
Wealth managers may work one-on-one with their clients, while investment bankers typically work with multiple corporate clients.
Wealth management refers simply to money management, in all its aspects. Wealth management firms make money by charging fees for the various services they provide. In the area of investments, clients are often sold managed account services, discretionary investment accounts that are traded on behalf of the client by one of the investment professionals at the firm.
In addition, wealth management firms provide clients with brokerage accounts, so clients can access virtually any type of investment. In addition to investment services, wealth management clients are provided with tax planning, estate planning, and retirement planning services.
Relationship Managers and Investment Professionals
The job of providing these services is typically split between relationship managers and investment professionals. The job of the relationship manager is to know the client. The job of the investment professional is to know the investments that are considered by, and for, the client.
It is the relationship manager who is primarily responsible for meeting the client's needs and wishes, and who most often meets directly with the client, although investment professionals are frequently included in regular, scheduled client meetings.
In the case of ultra high net worth clients, there may be an entire team of people assigned to a client's account, but there is still usually a single relationship manager assigned to oversee the account and to serve as the firm's primary representative.
The division of labor between the two aspects of wealth management can be seen as somewhat resembling the two aspects of relationship management and project execution that exist in investment banking.
Special Considerations
There are certain commonalities that tend to exist in candidates for a career in either wealth management or investment banking, but there is no educational major that specifically prepares an individual to act as a wealth manager or an investment banker. A degree in business, either a bachelor's degree or a Master of Business Administration (MBA), provides a basic foundation for a career in the banking or financial service industry. A degree in accounting or economics may be equally useful.
Importance of Talent and Skills
What may be more important than an individual's specific educational background are the personal talents and skills they possess. Good communication skills, both verbal and written, are definitely required for either career choice.
A relationship manager for a wealth management firm needs to have well-developed interpersonal skills to service the firm's clients. Interpersonal skills are important for an investment banker as well since it typically requires a substantial amount of wining and dining of clients.
Fluency in a second language or familiarity with the culture or business practices of another country can be a plus on a job candidate's resume since the banking industry is a global enterprise. Anything an individual can take care of in the way of obtaining licensing or certification, such as taking the Series 7 exam or obtaining certification as a financial planner or chartered financial analyst (CFA), can put them ahead of the game as far as necessary training and qualification, for either job.
|
08a7662496902b265709a112897e04fb | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092915/6-best-financial-advisors-chicago.asp | The 5 Best Financial Advisors in Chicago | The 5 Best Financial Advisors in Chicago
Major cities such as Chicago offer a high density of financial advisor options. Here are five independent firms that are among the best catering to retail clients in the Windy City.
Basil Financial Group
Basil Financial Group is a fee-only financial advisory firm: It sells no products and does not receive any commissions. Rather, it charges its clients an annual fee, which covers any meetings and also grants clients full access to advice on financial planning, investing and taxes. Lois Basil, the company's principal, is a Registered Investment Advisor who ran her Chicago-based accounting firm for more than 13 years before starting Basil Financial Group.
Blueprint Wealth Advisors, LLC
Blueprint Wealth Advisors is an advisory firm that aggregates independent wealth advisors. This means that while each professional works under the Blueprint Wealth Advisors banner, clients have their advisors. The company relies on over 50 years of combined experience to help its clients in a variety of wealth management areas, from estate planning to retirement planning. The company uses the Commonwealth Financial Network for research and as its broker/dealer; Commonwealth has received the J.D. Power and Associates "Highest in Independent Advisor Satisfaction Among Financial Investment Firms" award several times, most recently in 2019.
Crescendo Financial Planners
Crescendo Financial Planners is a fee-only financial planning and advisory firm and, therefore, does not receive fees or commissions from third parties. Similar to Basil Financial Group, Crescendo Financial Planners charges an annual retainer for the full use of its services. Taking a holistic approach, the firm seeks to integrate all areas of a person's financial life, understanding that an individual's unique beliefs and attitudes impact specific financial decisions. The company considers improving its clients' financial literacy a key part of its services.
DeRose Financial Planning Group
Named for its founder, Karen DeRose, DeRose Financial Planning Group delivers holistic and practical financial advice, having provided experienced investment management for more than 20 years and two generations (Karen's two sons work with her). The company tackles such areas as education funding, succession planning, benefits packages and tax shelters for clients ranging from families to firms. Its E-Worth Manager system provides clients with their own websites, so they can track their investment portfolios, bank accounts, and credit cards all in one place.
Savant Capital Management
Savant Capital Management (formerly D3 Financial Counselors) is a firm comprised of independent, fee-only financial planners, wealth managers, and financial advisors. Since all of the company's officers and staff members are fiduciaries, no one receives compensation from third parties and all are obligated to put clients' interests first. The company has a strict focus on ethics, education, and experience, using those core principles to add value to the plans it devises for its clientele, which ranges from individuals to small business owners to executives; medical professionals are a particular specialty among the firm's practices. The predecessor firm, D3, was founded in 1997 and 2018 merged with Savant Capital Management, a wealth-management firm headquartered in Rockford, Illinois.
|
2504c3cb7ec1c488e8bb16cbbbd70a0b | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/092915/career-advice-stockbroker-vs-financial-advisor.asp | Stockbroker vs. Financial Advisor Careers: What's the Difference? | Stockbroker vs. Financial Advisor Careers: What's the Difference?
Stockbrokers vs. Financial Advisors: An Overview
Only certain licensed professionals are allowed to place security trades for customers or offer paid investment advice under U.S. securities law. Stockbrokers and financial advisors are two such professionals, although they tend to service different kinds of clients and focus on varying outcomes.
It is not impossible for a professional to be both a stockbroker and a financial advisor at the same time, or for a professional to fluctuate between one designation and the other. The hallmark of stockbrokers and advisors alike is the Series 7 license, which allows an investment professional to offer a full line of general securities to clients. Everything else depends on the kinds of relationships built with their customers.
Key Takeaways Stockbrokers and financial advisors are both financial professionals that can help clients achieve their investment goals. Stockbrokers' primary duty is to execute trades, achieving best execution, on behalf of clients. Financial advisors give out general and specific financial advice for a fee and may manage client assets and portfolio construction.
Stockbrokers
A stockbroker is a financial professional who executes trades on behalf of clients, either retail or institutional. A stockbroker must work in the client's best interest to achieve the best execution. Brokers are licensed and must meet ethical and subject-matter related credentialing.
Online brokers are Internet-based platforms that allow clients to buy and sell securities on their own. Stockbrokers do not provide investment management advice or portfolio management as part of their basic description. Stockbrokers often earn a commission on a per-trade basis, which may be capped at a fixed rate.
Financial Advisors
Financial advisors are in the business of giving financial advice and managing money on behalf of clients. This may be through portfolio management or the selection of mutual funds or ETFs that others will manage. Financial advisors typically used a fee-based structure, for instance as a percentage of assets under management (AUM), charged on an annual basis. The latest incarnations of financial advisors are known as robo-advisors and build investment portfolios on behalf of clients using algorithms.
Key Differences
One critical legal difference between a stockbroker and a fully registered advisor hinges on the word "fiduciary." A fiduciary is a professional who manages money for another, called the "beneficiary." U.S. law places a positive obligation on any fiduciary to put the interest of its beneficiary first.
Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, all registered investment advisors (which many financial advisors are) carry a fiduciary obligation to their clients. This is not so with stockbrokers. Instead, the non-fiduciary stockbroker must only follow the standard of "suitability," which does not require the client's interests to be placed first; stockbrokers need only provide suitable advice given the client's resources.
There is one exception to note: stockbrokers owe fiduciary duties to their broker-dealers. Registered investment advisors do not have a broker-dealer. It is important to note that some financial advisors are not registered investment advisors; they are registered representatives who work for a broker-dealer. These financial advisors are bound by the same suitability standard as stockbrokers, and the only difference between the two might be the securities licenses they hold.
The other major difference is the kind of service provided to customers. Financial advisors normally present themselves as full-service money experts, meaning they offer tax advice, mortgage help, build budgets, and even sell insurance. They may make their money through fees, commissions or both. Conversely, stockbrokers are much more transactional. They still have clients and can build long-term relationships, but the emphasis is on securities products and not other aspects of financial life.
Special Considerations
What Type of Education and Experience Is Needed?
Almost anyone can become a stockbroker or financial advisor. It helps to have an undergraduate degree, preferably in finance, economics or some type of related field. It can also be a big plus to have prior experience working with investments or in sales, although it is not a prerequisite.
The only real requirement to either career is passing the securities license exams administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). There is one catch; FINRA requires you to have a sponsoring entity before you may sit for most of its exams. This means an aspiring advisor or broker needs to find a firm to sponsor them.
Common securities licenses include the following:
The Series 6, which grants the ability to deal in mutual funds The Series 22, which grants the ability to deal with direct participation programs The Series 7, which is the most common and covers a wide range of securities The Series 65, which is required by most states for those who wish to act as investment advisors The Series 63, which is required by some states for official registered representative status The Series 66, which covers the 63 and 65 exams without repeating Series 7 material
FINRA exams are not free. Most cost between $100 and $305 per attempt, but they are not overly difficult to pass. FINRA creates its own study materials, and most individuals only have to study for a few months to pass the Series 7, which many consider to be the most difficult test.
It is also imperative for advisors and brokers to develop effective communication and interpersonal skills. Success and failure depend on the ability to market, find clients and then explain complex financial topics in a digestible manner.
How Is the Work-Life Balance?
In the abstract, stockbrokers and financial advisors have very flexible schedules and enjoy outstanding work-life balance. A large number of them work independently and make their own schedules. Even those who work for firms and have office hours can work their way to relative self-determination.
However, watch out for a "grass is always greener" mentality. The first years as a broker or advisor are often filled with low pay and long hours until a book of business is established. Many in the field do not survive this introductory period, and those who do often come in on weekends or work late at night to accommodate client schedules.
Other Considerations
Outlook for the Industry
Even though the financial industry is expected to grow over the next decade, the nature of investment advisory careers is changing. The market is trending away from the classic, fee-based advisory services and moving toward remote, even automated, and cheaper alternatives. Robo-advisors and online brokers make it easier than ever to receive investment advice. More options are good for consumers, but they place a squeeze on brokers and advisors.
Successful stockbrokers and financial advisors in the twenty-first century need to have plans to deal with changing service dynamics, whether by embracing new platforms or creating a clear value-added service differentiation.
Being a Stockbroker vs. a Financial Advisor
There is a great deal of crossover between these two professions. A successful stockbroker could likely be a successful financial advisor and vice versa, even if the target customer base is a little different.
Those who enjoy comprehensive, big-picture strategies likely enjoy building full-service financial plans more than simply selling securities. Conversely, stockbroking is a better fit for those who prefer focusing narrowly on market products.
Both jobs are demanding and require a lot of self-marketing, initiative, and strong communication skills. The best decision is likely made on the basis of comfort, with an employer rather than the specific title attached to the work.
|
8b53745a815d3ace5c95a4ad8cc557bf | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/093015/6-best-financial-advisors-los-angeles.asp | The 6 Best Financial Advisors in Los Angeles | The 6 Best Financial Advisors in Los Angeles
Finding a good financial advisor is an important part of a person's financial life. However, when a person lives in a place as large as the greater Los Angeles area, finding a good financial advisor may be extremely tough. A financial advisor should offer his clients advisory services, wealth management advice, and retirement planning. The following is a list of the top six best financial advisory firms in the area.
1. ACap Asset Management
ACap Asset Management is an independent fee-only advisory firm, meaning it does not sell any products or services, and also does not charge commissions. Instead, the firm charges its clients an annual fee for full access to its services. The firm is a Registered Investment Advisor and does not take part in soft-dollar arrangements, a practice where third parties provide an investment advisor with perks in lieu of referring a client to that third party. The company remains committed to keeping its clients' investment costs low, using indexed mutual funds and ETFs to build low-cost portfolios.
2. Bel Air Investment Advisors
Bel Air Investment Advisors is a large firm with over 35 years of investment experience and with approximately $7 billion in assets under management (AUM). The firm's scale allows it to offer a range of proprietary and sub-advisory investment strategies that deliver unique value to its clients.
In addition to the firm's private client services and industry relationships, Bel Air Investment Advisors is consistently involved in philanthropy within the communities where it operates. Examples of the firm's philanthropic endeavors include donations to the Pasadena Museum of California Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles.
3. Covington Capital Management
Covington Capital Management is an independent advisory firm that offers unique wealth management services to high-net-worth individuals, families, and organizations. The firm acts as a fiduciary to its clients, ensuring clients' interests are always the number one priority.
Covington Capital Management is an employee-owned operation, ensuring the firm's values align with the values of its clients. It is known for one-on-one relationships with its clients and has a philosophy of growing client wealth through actively managed portfolios that can deliver high returns. Covington Capital Management has roughly $2 billion under management, making it Southern California's largest privately-owned investment firm.
4. Financially Wise Women
Financially Wise Women is an investment advisory firm that focuses on offering money management services to a female client base. Brittney Castro, the founder of Financially Wise Women, has previously worked at high-profile firms such as Ameriprise Financial and LPL Financial and holds CRPC, AAMS and CFP designations. The firm's value proposition is to educate its female clients on money matters. Financially Wise Women is a Registered Investment Advisor with the state of California.
5. The Glowacki Group, LLC.
The Glowacki Group is a fee-only investment advisory firm that specializes in giving its clients financial advice. The firm takes into account client requirements to deliver personalized recommendations that are based on its proprietary Capital2 Clarification Profile process. It acts as a fiduciary to help clients select products, when required, on a nonremuneration basis. The Glowacki Group delivers high-value service through its Capital Confidant Approach, a strategy that integrates coaching and advice into the wealth management process.
6. Miracle Mile Advisors
Miracle Mile Advisors is an independent, employee-owned firm of investment advisors, similar to Covington Capital Management. The firm is a fee-only advisory and does not sell products to its clients or take commissions. It specializes in offering low-cost investment vehicles such as ETFs and index funds. Through this type of investment strategy, Miracle Mile Advisors eliminates the need to evaluate individual manager risk.
|
7e38aee8feeaaa1c07b5d1d1da6ca36f | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/100115/career-advice-accountant-vs-controller.asp | Accountant vs. Controller: What's the Difference? | Accountant vs. Controller: What's the Difference?
Accountant vs. Controller: An Overview
Life as an accountant isn't particularly glamorous, but few career paths match its combination of solid pay, low stress, job security, and opportunity for advancement. Few accountants ever worry about burning out or feel compelled to switch industries, and many will move into positions of prominence and importance in an organization. One such position is the controller (sometimes spelled "comptroller," but always pronounced "controller"), who is the person responsible for a firm's accounting-related activities.
It's better to look at experienced accountants (even managers or other senior-level positions) when making comparisons to controllers. Entry-level accountancy jobs may be perfectly fine, but the vast majority of controllers have years of experience and several professional certifications. Almost all controllers start out as public accountants or work in corporate settings before moving up.
Key Takeaways An accountant, or practitioner of accounting, keeps and analyzes financial records. A controller, or comptroller, oversees the accounting operations of a firm, including managing staff. Because controllers' duties and responsibilities expand beyond that of an accountant, they typically command larger salaries. Academically, there are no additional requirements to become a controller, but most have advanced degrees, such as an MBA.
Accountants
Non-controller accountants have a number of specialties to choose from. Some go into auditing, others tax accounting, some work for the government, and others perform cost accounting and internal reports.
Accountants of all stripes serve as bookkeepers or analyze the work of other bookkeepers. They work to prevent fraud and maintain accuracy for their co-workers, investors, creditors, and regulators. Many become Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and are held to a strict code of professional ethics, not unlike those in the medical industry.
Controllers
Controllers come in a few different stripes. The most common are business controllers and corporate controllers, who handle entire accounting systems for their employers. For smaller companies, this means setting up the accounting infrastructure and performing the bookkeeping, whereas larger companies use controllers in an overseer role. Other controllers work for the government and are akin to chief financial officers (CFOs) for their respective agencies.
A business controller is essentially a chief accounting officer for a firm. The controller is considered a member of the executive staff and typically plays a critical role in organizing and (for lack of a better term) controlling the accounting personnel in the company.
A common yet underappreciated role of the business controller is interpreting financial data. Controllers typically have a great deal of accounting and business forecasting experience, particularly as it pertains to tax management. A controller may also be called on to lend his or her expertise on investments, creditor relationships, corporate governance, or other areas.
Often, the controller has one or two assistant controllers at their disposal. Assistant controllers are normally less experienced and spend more time in the day-to-day minutiae of data collection, regulatory and statutory reporting, and the preparation of particularly challenging journal entries.
Key Differences in Education and Skills
Most accountants study accounting and receive a degree in that subject. It's possible to become an entry-level accountant with a degree in finance, statistics, mathematics, or economics, but employers clearly prefer someone with a deeper understanding of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Senior-level accountancy jobs require a CPA designation and maybe even a certified management accountant (CMA), chartered financial analyst (CFA), or other professional designation. Senior financial accounting and reporting jobs might need three to six years of work experience, while tax accountants or junior auditors might only need one to three years after passing the CPA exams.
It doesn't take years of direct accounting experience to become a controller, but it helps. Controllers, especially those for larger companies, have a wider focus than simply accounting protocol. Many have a Master of Business Administration (MBA) or another advanced degree in finance. Perhaps the most helpful designation to aspiring controllers is the CMA.
Key Differences in Salary
It's very difficult to nail down an average salary for mid- or upper-level accountants, but the majority of career accountants earn above $60,000 within three to five years after becoming CPAs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median annual wage for accountants and auditors in 2019 was $71,550 ($34.40 per hour). Some positions, such as tax managers or internal audit managers, can earn as much as $100,000. Many accountants aspire to be partners at accounting firms, where they can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The median annual salary for financial managers—which includes controllers—was $129,890 in 2019 according to BLS data. In some industries, the term "comptroller" indicates an even more senior position and, ostensibly, an even higher salary.
Key Differences in Work/Life Balance
Most accountants work standard 40- to 45-hour weeks and enjoy plenty of paid leave, holidays, vacation time, and even a modest amount of schedule flexibility. Despite its boring reputation, accounting consistently ranks among the most satisfying careers.
However, accountants work famously long and intense hours during tax season (roughly February to April) before taking some time off during Spring and Summer. It's not uncommon to work more than 10 hours a day for six days a week during tax season.
A Berkeley analysis of controllers between 2013 and 2015 estimated that the average controller works 170 hours per month, or a little less than 43 hours a week. Like their accounting counterparts, controllers tend to experience a much better work/life balance than others in the financial industry.
Special Considerations
The job outlook appears strong for both career paths. BLS data projects the number of financial manager jobs will grow 16% between 2018 and 2028. While the data does not break out the number of those positions that will be for the controller role, this is much faster than the 5% projected growth rate for all occupations during this period.
The number of accounting and auditing jobs in the United States is expected to increase by 6% between 2018 and 2028.
Accountant vs. Controller
You could boil down the choice between mid-level accountant and controller to one between specialization and general control. Most accountants become increasingly specialized and narrow in their career focus over a few years, in part because that helps fuel higher salaries. Controllers can't afford to be experts in just one area since they have to oversee entire accounting operations and offer systemic advice to their contemporaries.
Controllers tend to make more money and have to manage people and organize departments; not all accountants have the same responsibility. Some people thrive in management roles, and these are the best candidates for controller jobs. Others are happiest as experts in their own fields without the complications of oversight. This should be a major factor when deciding about a potential controller career.
|
4df0f5662e69b5ed03b033b623b1365e | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/100215/career-advice-investment-banking-vscorporate-finance.asp | Investment Banking vs. Corporate Finance: What's the Difference? | Investment Banking vs. Corporate Finance: What's the Difference?
Investment Banking vs. Corporate Finance: An Overview
A generally-accepted distinction between corporate finance roles and investment banking roles is that a corporate finance professional deals with day-to-day financial operations and handles short- and long-term business goals, while an investment banker focuses on raising capital. An investment banker might also run private placements and conduct merger and acquisitions (M&A) deals.
It could also be said that investment banking roles are tasked with growing a company, while the corporate finance industry is employed in order to manage a company.
Key Takeaways Investment banking grows a company, while corporate finance manages a company.A corporate finance professional deals with day-to-day financial operations and handles short- and long-term business goals, while an investment banker focuses on raising capital.The academic and experience credentials necessary to become an investment banker are higher than for most corporate finance positions.
Investment Banking
Investment banks raise capital for other companies through securities operations in the debt and equity markets. Investment banks also help coordinate and execute mergers and acquisitions (M&A). They offer advisory services to big clients and perform complex financial analyses.
Investment banking is considered one of the premier fields in the financial industry. There are two standard paths into an investment banking career: attend a noted undergraduate university and enter on the ground level as an analyst, or go to business school, earn a Master of Business Administration (MBA) graduate degree, and breakthrough as an associate. In their undergraduate studies, those individuals interested in becoming investment bankers should focus on degrees in finance, economics, banking, or investment analysis. Most people either accept internships or take low-level positions at large banks to gain experience, and many work as analysts before receiving their MBA.
Major investment banks, especially in New York and London, focus their recruiting efforts on the best-performing prospects from Ivy League schools—although it's not unheard of for exceptionally analytical prospects with degrees in challenging subjects such as biopharmaceuticals or other medical fields to make their way into the industry.
Even junior investment banking analysts can expect compensation of $70,000 to $150,000 a year when signing bonuses and performance-based bonuses are factored in, according to data from Wall Street Oasis.
Corporate Finance
Corporate finance is a catch-all designation for any business division that handles financial activities for a firm. In some instances, it can be difficult to differentiate corporate finance roles from investment banking roles because. For example, an investment banking firm might have a corporate finance division.
Many different viable career paths can be found in corporate finance because there are so many different kinds of jobs in the field. Individuals can find their niches as accountants, advisors, account managers, analysts, treasurers, business analysts, or any number of other jobs. There are a few necessary skills, such as an understanding of corporate finance and effective communication skills.
A financial analyst, technically involved in investment banking, could expect a median salary of $85,660 in 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Meanwhile, a chief financial officer and other top professionals in the corporate finance field enjoyed a median salary of $184,460 in 2019, according to the BLS.
According to the BLS, both financial analyst positions and corporate finance executive positions are expected to grow at a rate of 6% between 2018 and 2028.
Special Considerations
Many choose to walk away from investment banking careers after a few years due to burnout. Investment banking deals tend to be executed by small teams—three to seven is standard—with one analyst, one or two associates, one vice president, and a lead managing director. Workflow is bottom-up, and those lowest on the rungs are responsible for an exceptional amount of effort. Tales abound of investment analysts and associates working 80- to 100-hour weeks. An 80-hour week works out to five 16-hour days or seven 11.5-hour days.
Those debating a career in investment banking versus a career in corporate finance have two overriding considerations: workload and salary. The prestige and compensation of investment banking jobs are alluring to many, so intense working hours are a small hurdle to clear.
Corporate finance jobs aren't easy to get, but they're more plentiful and less competitive than investment banking jobs. Corporate finance still offers an excellent career in business analytics and corporate culture to those who value their weekends, holidays, and evenings.
|
8d2fe15ea765893f56a04a63a00e1cd1 | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/100215/how-sell-mutual-funds-your-clients.asp | How to Sell Mutual Funds to Your Clients | How to Sell Mutual Funds to Your Clients
Mutual funds can make excellent additions to your clients' portfolios, yet many people—especially those new to investing—aren't familiar with mutual funds or what they entail.
As a professional, you should be offering information about the benefits of mutual funds and the way in which these specific products can help your clients meet their investment goals. Providing the type of information contained in these tips will help you sell mutual funds to even the most skeptical clients.
Key Takeaways A mutual fund's two main selling points are personal customization and diversification. Because mutual funds typically handle a large pool of assets, they have access to many more stocks and other funds that an individual investor won't have the capital to buy into. One of the main reasons investors steer away from mutual funds is their high expense ratios. A 2-3% ratio is hard to justify when investors can choose broad-based ETFs with expenses as low as 0.1%. When selling mutual funds, focus on the total return of investment versus and the mitigation of risk.
Automatic Diversification
The first benefit of mutual funds that you should emphasize is the incredible diversification they offer. Explain how diversification helps your clients avoid catastrophic losses and protects portfolios during economic turmoil by spreading out the total investment over several different types of assets in different industries.
Diversification Without the Cost
To create optimally diversified portfolios on their own, your clients would need to invest in a wide range of securities from different sectors. A sufficiently diversified, self-managed portfolio requires an immense investment of research time and capital. Even with your help in selecting profitable assets, your clients would be looking at considerable costs in the form of trading commissions and transaction fees.
A mutual fund offers shareholders automatic diversification, either across industries or within a single sector. Mutual funds also allow your clients to pick a mixture of high-risk, high-reward securities and stable growth assets, to spread their risk and benefit from both investment types.
Diversification in Foreign Assets
Mutual funds can represent a great way to get diversified exposure to just about any asset class. For instance, many international markets, especially the emerging ones, are just too difficult to directly invest. Surprisingly, many European markets are not highly liquid or investor friendly. In this case, it pays to have a professional manager on your side, wading through all the complexities. A mutual fund can specialize in smaller markets and offer investment expertise that is worth paying an active manager's fee.
Mutual Funds for Customization
Besides diversification, the greatest advantage of mutual funds is their virtually endless variety. This wide assortment of products makes it relatively simple to find funds that fit your clients' needs.
As you discuss the benefits of mutual funds with your clients, ask about specific investment goals and assess your clients' risk tolerances. A clear understanding of these two factors will help determine which funds you recommend and can mean the difference between successful investments and very dissatisfied clients.
If your clients want to preserve their initial investments and are comfortable with modest fixed rates of return, point them toward money market funds or bond funds that invest in highly rated long-term debt.
Mutual Funds for Desired Income
Mutual funds generate two kinds of income: capital gains and dividends. Though any net profits generated by a fund must be passed on to shareholders at least once a year, the frequency with which different funds make distributions varies widely.
If your client is looking to grow their wealth over the long-term and is not concerned with generating immediate income, funds that focus on growth stocks and use a buy-and-hold strategy are best, because they generally incur lower expenses and have a lower tax impact than other types of funds.
If regular investment income is your client's main goal, you should discuss the benefits of dividend funds that invest in dividend-bearing stocks and interest-bearing bonds. Explain that a variety of funds can offer consistent annual income from different sources, depending on your clients' risk tolerance.
If they are primarily focused on making big gains quickly, talk about stock funds that might offer the best chance of speedy profits. However, be sure to discuss the increased risk of loss that accompanies aggressively managed high-yield funds. Help your clients understand that sky-high profits don't come without a price.
Access to High-Value Assets
Mutual funds pool the investments of thousands of shareholders, so they can invest in stocks, bonds, and other securities that may be well out of the price range of your clients if they invested in them individually. This pooling allows your clients to benefit from the growth and dividend payments of big-ticket assets, such as the Coca-Cola Company, Alphabet, and Costco Wholesale Corporation, without requiring the massive amounts of capital necessary to purchase any substantial holding in either company.
Affordability and Liquidity
Mutual funds are far more affordable for the average investor than the assets in which the mutual funds invest. Do the math, and show your clients how mutual funds allow them to invest in the same assets as Warren Buffet without having his net worth.
Explain how open-ended funds work. Open-ended funds will allow your clients to liquidate their holdings at any time, giving them easy access to those dollars when they need them. In addition, many funds allow your clients to set up redemption schedules, so they can liquidate part of their holdings on specified days each month, quarter, or year, ensuring regular investment income.
Professional Management
Mutual funds are managed by professionals whose entire careers revolve around turning profits for shareholders. While your role is still to help your clients choose the right assets, investing in a mutual fund recruits a seasoned general to your clients' investment armies. You help your clients select the mutual funds that best suit their needs, and the fund manager ensures that your recommendation pays off.
Mutual Funds for Effortless Returns
The benefit of professional management ties right in with the next advantage of mutual funds, or effortless returns. Initially, of course, there is some legwork that goes into selecting the right fund. After making the investment, your clients can essentially sit back and watch their returns roll in, knowing that the fund managers are working to keep the funds profitable. Until they are ready to sell their shares, there is little for you and your clients to do except monitor the funds' performance and net profits.
If your clients are inclined to self-manage their portfolios, you might point out the amount of research and daily involvement that would be required to manage such a wide range of assets on their own.
Mutual Funds and Tax Strategy
When assessing the suitability of mutual funds, it is important to consider taxes. Depending on an investor's current financial situation, income from mutual funds can have a serious impact on her annual tax liability. The more income she earns in a given year, the higher her ordinary income and capital gains tax brackets.
Dividend-bearing funds are a poor choice for those looking to minimize their tax liability. Though funds that employ a long-term investment strategy may pay qualified dividends, which are taxed at the lower capital gains rate, any dividend payments increase an investor's taxable income for the year.
The best choice is to direct them to funds that focus on long-term capital gains and avoid dividend stocks or interest-bearing corporate bonds. Funds that invest in tax-free government or municipal bonds generate interest that is not subject to federal income tax, and these may be a good choice. Still, not all tax-free bonds are completely tax-free, so make sure to check whether those earnings are subject to state or local taxes.
Many funds offer products managed with the specific goal of tax-efficiency. These funds employ a buy-and-hold strategy and eschew dividend- or interest-paying securities. They come in a variety of forms, so it's important to consider risk tolerance and investment goals when looking at a tax-efficient fund.
Mutual Fund Downside
Even if you do not have a fiduciary duty to your clients, you should act as if you did. Be honest with your clients about some of the less-attractive aspects of mutual funds, so that they are fully informed when making their decision. Chief among these disadvantages are the potentials for increased taxes and annual expenses.
Fee Disadvantages
Since you should already have a clear idea of what types of funds fit your clients' needs, talk to them about the typical expenses incurred by those types of investments. For example, if they are looking for high-yield funds with active fund managers, explain that the increased trading activity will likely mean higher expense ratios.
Tax Disadvantages
Discuss the tax implications of their investment choices. While any type of investment will impact your clients' tax liability to some degree, it's important to outline the specific effects of the types of funds they're considering. If they are looking into dividend funds, say, you could discuss the taxation of dividend income, and how investing in funds that employ a buy-and-hold strategy can reduce tax liability by paying qualified dividends that are taxed at the capital gains rate rather than as ordinary income.
Put Your Client First
Avoid recommending products based on the promise of commissions or other advantages. Always direct your clients to the products that are best-suited to their specific needs, regardless of which firm offers them.
Know When to Say No
Being a financial advisor requires a delicate balance of ambition and realism. While mutual funds are a great fit for a broad spectrum of investors, you should heed the signs that this type of investment may not be well-suited to your clients' investment style.
If your clients enjoy playing an active role in how and when their money is invested, mutual funds may not be for them. While the professional management of mutual funds is a huge advantage, it also removes investors from the day-to-day mechanics of security and market analysis and trading. Be sure your clients are comfortable entrusting their investments to someone else, thus forfeiting control over asset allocation and trading strategy.
In addition, mutual funds may not be the best choice for clients who are primarily concerned with annual expenses. Unlike taking positions in individual stocks or bonds, becoming an investor – in other words, a shareholder – in a mutual fund presupposes paying annual fees equal to a percentage of the value of one's investment. This means any mutual fund needs to generate annual returns greater than its expense ratio in order for shareholders to profit.
High-yield funds require a very active management style, which can mean expense ratios of 2%-3% in order to compensate for the fees generated by frequent trading of assets. More passively managed portfolios may have much lower expense ratios, but these often correspond to lower returns, as these funds are primarily oriented toward long-term growth rather than the highest yields possible.
|
1ca14acd252f911de036291b0f96bb0e | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/100515/top-5-highest-paid-hedge-fund-managers.asp | Top 5 Highest Paid Hedge Fund Managers | Top 5 Highest Paid Hedge Fund Managers
A hedge fund is an investment vehicle and business structure that aggregates capital from multiple investors and invests in securities and other investment instruments. Professional management companies structured as limited partnerships or limited liability companies normally run hedge funds. They differ from mutual funds in that regulators do not cap leverage, and most of the investments are highly liquid.
Hedge fund managers oversee the investments of their respective hedge funds. For hedge fund managers to be successful, they must create a competitive advantage, have a well-defined investment strategy, high amount of capital, a robust marketing plan, and a strong risk management strategy. Those who become successful make a lot of money annually, like the highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2018.
Bloomberg recently ranked top-earning hedge fund managers for the first time as part of its Billionaires Index. It revealed that the top 10 individuals made approximately $7.7 billion last year. These are the top 5 highest paid managers based on Bloomberg's estimates:
James Simons
James Simons is the founder of the highly regarded quantitative hedge fund firm Renaissance Technologies. His total hedge fund income was $1.6 billion last year, making his net worth $16.6 billion. Forty-three percent of this income, or $680 million, was in the form of fees.
Simons retired in 2010 but still has a say on how Renaissance is run and makes money from its fund’s performances. Last year, the Renaissance Institutional Equities fund gained 8.5%, Renaissance Institutional Diversified Alpha returned 3.23%, and Renaissance Institutional Diversified Global Equity made 10.3 per cent. The performance of Renaissance’s oldest fund, Medallion, is unknown as it is only open to owners and employees at the company.
According to Forbes, Simons is the 23rd richest person in the world.
Ray Dalio
Ray Dalio, the founder of the world’s biggest hedge fund, is regularly identified as one of the wealthiest in the industry. In 2018, his fortune rose $1.3 billion, powered by Bridgewater’s approximately $160 billion of assets. He reaped $610 million in fees.
Like the Renaissance, Bridgewater excelled last year during financial market turmoil. Its flagship Pure Alpha strategy returned 14.6% to investors net of fees, its best performance in five years. According to Forbes, Dalio has a net worth of $18.4 billion, making him the 25th richest person in the world.
Ken Griffin
Ken Griffin, the founder of Chicago-based Citadel, has been making headlines for buying penthouses and mansions across the globe, purchasing art and giving away millions of dollars to charity. His spending spree has been comfortably financed by strong performances from Citadel’s multi-strategy hedge funds.
Citadel’s flagship Wellington fund gained over 9%, while its global equities and tactical trading funds returned almost 6% and 9%, respectively. Those impressive performances saw Griffin’s personal fortune swell by $870 million in 2018, making him the 45th richest person in the world, according to Forbes. Of his total hedge fund income, $360 million is estimated to be from fees.
John Overdeck
John Overdeck raked in $770 million in 2018, including $370 million in fees. Overdeck is the co-founder of Two Sigma Investments, a hedge fund that tracks large amounts of data to predict the prices of securities. In 2018, Two Sigma’s Absolute Return fund returned 11%, while its global macro Compass fund generated a 14% gain. Forbes ranks Overdeck as the 118th richest person in the world with a total net worth of $6.1 billion.
David Siegel
Two Sigma’s successful year also benefitted its other co-founder David Siegel. Like Overdeck, Siegel netted $770 million after their hedge fund made $3.2 billion for investors last year.
The computer science graduate was ranked the joint 118th richest person in the world by Forbes.
|
2c7152b7a21d24299bdb1d4d08cabe30 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-veterans-homeless-housing-20140210-story.html | Helping the VA help L.A.'s homeless vets | Helping the VA help L.A.'s homeless vets
For years, the effort to establish housing for chronically homeless veterans on the VA’s sprawling West Los Angeles campus has been painfully, shamefully slow, as mistrust and inertia have impeded progress at the same time that two wars have dramatically increased the need for action. Finally, there may be a chance for a breakthrough. A new piece of legislation, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would clear the way for the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into long-term lease agreements with developers and service providers to transform two vacant structures, known as Buildings 205 and 208, into housing with therapeutic services. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) is expected to introduce a companion bill in the House.
It’s disturbing that anyone is homeless in the United States, and it’s particularly disgraceful — as Feinstein noted in a statement — that so many military service veterans are homeless. An estimated 6,300 live in Los Angeles County, the largest concentration of homeless veterans in the country. The VA has said for years that it would renovate three buildings on its grounds to house the homeless. Work is currently underway on just one, Building 209.
This new legislation would jump-start the process for the other two buildings. The VA is forbidden to offer extended commercial leases on its 387-acre property, but Feinstein’s bill would allow it to forge a long-term partnership with a private developer who could obtain financing and do the necessary renovation in a timely fashion. “You get the same building at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, whose district includes the property and who worked with Feinstein and Waxman to conceive the legislation. Once the buildings are renovated, the VA can bring in private organizations that specialize in working with the homeless to run programs.
The buildings would offer long-term housing with intensive services for the most troubled, chronically homeless vets — those with mental illnesses, substance abuse problems or physical disabilities, and sometimes two or more of those problems. Residents could get physical and mental health care and treatment for substance abuse provided by teams of professionals working together in one location. They would also get assistance in securing disability benefits, managing their money and developing the daily living skills that slipped away as their lives disintegrated.
Residents might stay a year or longer, with the goal of becoming stable enough to move on to some level of permanent housing — perhaps including support services — and to be re-integrated into the community. Each building could house about 60 or 65 veterans. That’s less than 200 total, a tiny fraction of the number of homeless vets who need housing, but a potentially lifesaving opportunity for those who are able to secure a place there. Of course, whenever residents transition out of this housing, rooms would be freed up for other veterans to move in.
This is a solid, long-overdue plan for a Department of Veterans Affairs with an abysmal record of providing housing for its homeless veterans. And it’s not that the department isn’t capable of it. Another permanent supportive housing project for homeless veterans with mental or traumatic stress disorders opened last September on VA property in the San Fernando Valley.
All this progress is promising, but the VA isn’t done yet. It’s appealing a court ruling last August that struck down some lease arrangements that it maintained on the West L.A. property, contending that the income from the leases was used for programs for veterans. The lawsuit that led to the court decision was brought by a group of disabled homeless veterans and the Vietnam Veterans of America. The plaintiffs’ goal was more to compel the VA to offer long-term housing to homeless veterans than to kick out non-veteran tenants. Getting Buildings 205 and 208 renovated and finishing the work on Building 209 will help accomplish that worthy goal. The VA doesn’t have to house every homeless veteran on the West Los Angeles campus, but it should consider repurposing other vacant buildings or constructing new ones to house more.
|
7f5a1210f28bd6cc84c99c4aec113c6c | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-video-jail-visits-20170530-story.html | Editorial: Banning in-person jail visits is foolish and needlessly cruel | Editorial: Banning in-person jail visits is foolish and needlessly cruel
As a movement has taken hold to get California’s jails and prisons to operate more efficiently while releasing inmates who are better able to successfully reenter society, there have been occasional steps in the opposite direction. One of the most destructive has been a trend to ban in-person visits by family and friends.
Some county jails have gone as far as eliminating visitation rooms, where higher-security inmates speak on phones to their visitors while seeing them, face-to-face, through glass barriers. Some have ended visits in which lower-security inmates can hug their children, parents and spouses. Plans have moved forward for new jails that don’t even include space for such visits, except by the inmates’ attorneys.
Offered in place of inmate visits is video conferencing. Sheriffs argue that video provides fewer security risks and fewer opportunities for contraband, like drugs, weapons and cellphones, to be passed to inmates. And besides, some argue, video is cheaper.
It certainly is — for the jailers. For inmates, though, it’s not a matter of simply going to the jail library and making a free call on a service like Skype. Jails enter into contracts with private video-conferencing providers, which charge families, friends and others by the minute for video “visits” with inmates.
Mountains of evidence demonstrate that inmate contact with family and friends...are crucial to the inmates’ successful return to normal life.
The program is reminiscent of the scandalous arrangements jails enter into with telephone companies that charge exorbitant rates for calls from inmates to home.
Obviously, jails are highly restricted areas in which rules that don’t apply to people on the outside properly limit the actions of inmates. Calls and visits are restricted and monitored, as they should be. Incarceration is meant to punish the prisoner as well as protect society. It is not meant to be particularly pleasant.
But it also shouldn’t be unnecessarily cruel, and it certainly shouldn’t be stupid. Mountains of evidence and decades of experience demonstrate that inmate contact with family and friends — direct, face-to-face contact — helps to repair and retain the ties that are crucial to the inmates’ successful return to normal life once their terms are completed. Visits help curb inmate discipline problems and jail violence. They are correlated with lower recidivism and better odds of post-incarceration employment. Eliminating that contact is foolish. Charging for “visits” that can take place only by video is unconscionable.
Video technology itself is not the problem. Some jails and prisons are too remote for families to readily visit their locked-up loved ones, and video provides what could in theory be a low-cost option. But it should not be the exclusive option.
Besides, at some facilities, families must still travel to the jail even for a video visit. They are in the same building as the inmates but are prevented from seeing them in person. Equipment malfunctions sometimes prevent even the video visit from taking place.
Last year, a bill to require all California prisons and jails to allow in-person visits made its way to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, only to be vetoed. Brown explained in his message that a statutory mandate on local jail operations would be too inflexible.
Still, he expressed concern about the trend toward eliminating in-person jail visits. He directed the Board of State and Community Corrections — the panel that allocates state money for county jail construction and programming — to come up with a solution.
It didn’t. Now, instead of a new stand-alone bill, the Legislature is seeking to impose the same mandate as part of the state budget process. A handful of jails would be exempt from the requirement for five years, after which they would have to accommodate in-person visits.
We sympathize with the governor for first wanting to let the corrections board do its job. Failing that, he conceivably might argue that a bill, after all, is a better vehicle than the budget process. But, been there, done that. California has been too clueless, for too long, about criminal justice and is finally beginning to wise up. Jail policies that ban in-person visits are a foolish step backward, and the Legislature is right to step in.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
5deccc2006390b98c947486ad02052ce | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-vision-zero-20170729-story.html | Editorial: Selfish motorists are fighting L.A.'s street safety projects. City Hall needs to find the courage to fight back | Editorial: Selfish motorists are fighting L.A.'s street safety projects. City Hall needs to find the courage to fight back
I’m a busy person. I’ve got places to be, and traffic can really gum up my schedule. So I want Los Angeles streets to be as fast as possible. The fewer traffic lights and crosswalks the better. If a couple of pedestrians get mowed down every now and then, or a bike rider gets squashed, well, that’s life in the big city, right? They shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place. This is Los Angeles, get a car like everybody else.
People might not put it so bluntly, but that’s what it comes down to. The callousness of some of the commuters complaining about Los Angeles’ attempts to make the streets safer has bordered on satire. But this is no joke — there is a real possibility that traffic concerns and knee-jerk opposition to change will override good public policy and slow, or even reverse, L.A.’s ambitious plan to dramatically reduce deadly crashes on local streets.
Unveiled by Mayor Eric Garcetti in 2015, the city’s Vision Zero program aims to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2025. The City Council later endorsed and funded the Vision Zero Action Plan, which seeks to redesign the roadways and intersections of the city’s 40 most dangerous streets to make them safer. Often that means slowing traffic. A pedestrian hit by a car traveling 20 miles per hour has an 80% chance of survival. A person hit by a car traveling 40 miles per hour has just a 10% chance.
The mayor has been far too quiet in defending his program and council members who face blowback when they support road safety projects.
Together with the mayor’s Great Streets initiative to revitalize select commercial corridors and the city’s Mobility Plan to make it easier for people to bike, walk and take public transit, Vision Zero is part of a larger effort to shed L.A.’s traditional automobile-centric approach and evolve into a modern, multi-modal city.
But this is no easy transition, as the backlash to recent projects demonstrates. For example, consider the “road diet” on Vista del Mar near Dockweiler State Beach that removed two traffic lanes to make space for angled parking spots on the side facing the beach. The change was made in response to a $9.5 million settlement the city paid to the family of a teenage girl killed while crossing the busy street to get to her parked car. Last week, City Councilman Mike Bonin — one the council’s most ardent supports of safer streets — announced that the city would add back the lanes in the face of commuters’ complaints and provide parking instead in a nearby county-owned lot.
Vista del Mar wasn’t an official Vision Zero project – it didn’t go through the standard community outreach and input process that is an essential part of any road reconfiguration. Still, it quickly became the rallying cry for opponents of road diets and other projects that might slow traffic. It’s worth noting that some of the loudest critics of the Vista del Mar reconfiguration and another nearby Vision Zero project in Playa del Rey don’t live in the community; they commute through it to avoid 405 traffic.
Last week Councilman Gil Cedillo introduced a motion that would block any road diet or lane reconfiguration in his district, which stretches from Westlake to Highland Park, unless he gave the OK. Cedillo is no fan of bike lanes and, if approved, his motion could halt a Vision Zero project on Temple Street near downtown that proposed to remove two lanes of traffic, add bike lanes and improve crosswalks. Earlier this year, Councilman Paul Krekorian sent a Great Streets project in North Hollywood back to the drawing board because he was concerned about removing traffic lanes to make room for protected bike routes.
Typical City Hall. It’s easy for Garcetti and council members to tout their progressive credentials and sign off on ambitious policies to transform L.A. It’s much harder to implement those plans. Too often city leaders fold in the face of opposition. We’ve seen this with the city’s Bicycle Plan. We’ve seen it with homeless housing. And that’s why so many ambitious plans remain unfulfilled.
City leaders, and Garcetti in particular, have to continually make the case that Vision Zero is about making the streets safer for walkers, bike riders, motorcyclists and, yes, even drivers. The mayor has been far too quiet in defending his program and council members who face blowback when they support road safety efforts. Projects downtown and in Silver Lake have demonstrated that road diets can help reduce injuries without significant traffic delays. There is a learning curve, and over time as more Vision Zero projects are completed, residents will likely see that the benefits of safer streets outweigh the lane losses and any effect on traffic flow.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
da8fee63c67378dd5aca8200b467b5bc | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-voter-fraud-commission-20170511-story.html | Editorial: There are plenty of problems with our election system. Voter fraud isn’t one of them | Editorial: There are plenty of problems with our election system. Voter fraud isn’t one of them
The nation faces some very real problems with its election system. Not enough people care to vote, for beginners. And many of those who do care find themselves barred through burdensome voter-ID laws or have the power of their votes diluted through race-based gerrymandering. Voting machines in many jurisdictions around the nation are outdated, and lines at polling places can stretch discouragingly long.
But here’s what isn’t a problem, fortunately: out-and-out voter fraud, in which people intentionally register in multiple jurisdictions in hopes of casting more than one ballot, or who register to vote despite knowing they are ineligible to do so.
A report by the non-partisan Brennan Center found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are “traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices.” The report “reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent.”
So what issue does President Trump zero in on in his new Commission on Election Integrity? Voter fraud, of course. And in doing so, he advances a proven myth while ignoring real, Republican-driven restrictions on access to the polls.
That makes the new commission of a piece with Trump’s other efforts to undermine the core institutions of American democracy. Not only is the news fake in Trump’s dystopian democracy, so too are the voters who voted for his opponent. And the judges who ruled against his cockamamie executive order on immigration. And the ex-head of the F.B.I., who was fired on spurious grounds after pressing an investigation into possible connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference in last year’s election.
What is behind these anti-democratic moves? Leaks from the White House disclose a president obsessed with his public image, and who lashes out at aides when news coverage churns beyond his control — the spasms of a wannabe autocrat who lacks respect for the rule of law and the institutions that keep the country running.
Presidents often create commissions, but rarely with the kind of cynicism that Trump displays here. He has selected Vice President Mike Pence as chair and reportedly has selected as vice chair Kansas’ controversial secretary of state, Kris Kobach, who believes all voters should have to provide proof of citizenship — a birth certificate or passport — before voting. Studies and court rulings have found such requirement disproportionately burden low-income people and minorities.
Clearly, a sober and detached assessment of the voting system is the last thing Trump is looking for. Rather, he hopes to find excuses for his failure to win the popular vote in November (a loss he blamed at the time on “millions of people who voted illegally”). And in the process, he will inflate a non-existent problem into a threat, presumably as a prelude to policies aimed at suppressing votes by people more likely to support Democrats than Republicans. That could well be the greatest peril that Trump poses to the nation — hijacking democracy by stealing the fundamental right to vote from people who have few other options for making their voices heard.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook
|
7ef052e97e0e9e01331964c52d5f2ff3 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-garcetti-reduce-purchases-sustainabili-20141016-story.html | Editorial: Garcetti’s ambitious goal for L.A.'s water supply | Editorial: Garcetti’s ambitious goal for L.A.'s water supply
Spurred by the drought, but planning for long-term sustainability, Mayor Eric Garcetti has set an ambitious and important goal for Los Angeles: to reduce the amount of water it purchases by 50% in 10 years. That’s a decade sooner than water managers had anticipated, and it’s a big change for a city that currently buys nearly 80% of its supply. This executive directive — if it’s achieved — would remake Los Angeles’ water management, requiring major strides in conservation, water recycling and groundwater cleanup.
This is doable. The Department of Water and Power has long had plans on the books that could significantly increase the city’s local water supply. But over the years, for whatever reason — lack of funding or political will or some combination of the two — the projects have been delayed. They include expanding catch basins and other systems to capture stormwater and replenish aquifers, developing the infrastructure to safely treat and reuse wastewater, encouraging more residents and businesses to install drought-tolerant landscaping and finally building a treatment plant to clean up contaminated San Fernando Valley groundwater.
Of course, this is also an expensive and politically fraught mandate. That’s why so many important local water projects have stalled. Just look at Los Angeles’ effort to recycle and reuse wastewater, which was shelved more than a decade ago after opponents derided it as “toilet to tap.” Now it is back in the planning stage after Orange County and other regions embraced it. Garcetti, along with the City Council, will have to build support for controversial projects and be willing to ask ratepayers — who are already paying more for expensive imported water — to fund much-needed investments in the local water supply.
The mayor’s directive is significant for another reason. For the first time in its modern history, Los Angeles is planning a significant reduction in imported water. More than a century ago, city leaders realized that the growing population could not be served by the Los Angeles River and regional aquifers, and so they began to rely on imported water, first by building an aqueduct from the Owens River in the Eastern Sierra and later by buying water delivered from Northern California and the Colorado River. While previous city leaders have talked about reducing the city’s dependence on imported water, Garcetti has set a target and a deadline to do it. The question is whether he and the city’s political leadership will stay focused and committed to making these ambitious water goals a reality.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion
|
e03c4dcc6a2baf1a2e9a1547af5aada1 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-hauling-20160729-snap-story.html | Editorial: When it comes to water, do not keep on trucking | Editorial: When it comes to water, do not keep on trucking
The multi-year drought has become so bad in some parts of California that last year wells dried up and communities had to have their water hauled in by truck. Even with that emergency lifeline, residents of places like East Porterville in Tulare County had to carefully parcel out their supplies for cooking and cleaning. Toilets were “flushed” by dumping used dishwater into the bowl. Showers became a luxury.
In some historically wetter places around the Bay Area and the Central Coast, residents who never thought they would be without water also had to begin making arrangements to truck supplies in — or else abandon their homes.
Those were communities that grew up around water supplies that, while never abundant, had previously been reliable when supplies were carefully managed. But when the wells ran dry, or close to it, it became the responsibility of the state to provide emergency supplies and to offer plans to integrate those residents into a more reliable and resilient water grid.
Trucked water is an acceptable, although extreme, way to survive a drought emergency, but it’s a short-term solution. If the water table is not restored or hookups to municipal water districts are not constructed, it may be time to question whether residents surviving on hauled water should seek a more habitable place to live.
So as Los Angeles County officials consider whether to permit landowners in pockets of the Antelope Valley to build new communities by developing arid parcels with no connection to water supplies — communities that could be made viable only with regular tanker truck trips — the response that comes immediately to mind is, “You’ve got to be kidding.”
But they’re not kidding. The Board of Supervisors is expected to consider in November whether to permit development of more than 3,000 single family residences in northern portions of the county that have no current source of water and no aqueducts, pipelines or other connections to bring it to them — except for the highways over which water trucks would pass.
It should be an easy decision, despite more than five years of engagement between county officials and owners of currently undeveloped or under-developed land. The board should say no.
There are any number of reasons, but begin with the obvious: California does not have enough water even for its current needs. Existing neighborhoods must learn to use less. When new neighborhoods are built — and yes, we will need more homes for a population that continues to grow — they ought to reflect the lessons of recent decades by being water-efficient and drought-resilient. They ought to reflect the growing understanding that the 20th century build-out of California came during a time of uncharacteristically wet years. They ought not to rely on pollution-spewing trucks to keep their thirst quenched.
People who bought land in the northern part of the county argue that they ought to be able to develop their property just as their predecessors did across the Los Angeles Basin and then in the San Fernando Valley. After all, wasn’t the Valley also a desert, without its own source of water? Didn’t all those tracts and mid-century homes become viable only because the city extended its reach to the Owens Valley and diverted an entire river?
Actually no, the San Fernando Valley was not and is not a desert. But more to the point — Los Angeles water officials and thinkers are currently figuring out how to respond to Mayor Eric Garcetti’s call to deeply slash the city’s water imports within the decade by making use of the resources it has locally, including polluted Valley groundwater basins that are due for cleanup. L.A. may always need its 20th century aqueduct links to the Owens Valley, the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, but as lifelines rather than as instruments of unsustainable growth.
That’s the right way into the future for all of California — as much local self-reliance as possible, bolstered with reliable links to move water from one part of the state to another as the need arises. The number of communities that subsist on hauled water should be minimized, not expanded, and the emergency periods in which tanks are replenished by trucks should ideally be shortened, not turned into a regular state of affairs.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
0fc15b055b247b73b3d087fee5a583c0 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2011-jan-29-la-ed-trigger-20110129-story.html | A better ‘parent trigger’ | A better ‘parent trigger’
The parent trigger — which allows parents to force radical change at lower-performing schools if at least half sign a petition — is an intriguing reform wrapped in a sloppily written law. When students are stuck in miserable schools where officials stubbornly defend the status quo, parents should be able to demand change. That should be carried out in ways that protect and inform parents and that require public transparency.
The first parent trigger petition, at McKinley Elementary School in Compton, offered an example of how the process shouldn’t work. The signature drive was held in secret, to avoid a backlash from the school, but with the decision pre-made for parents that the school would be taken over by charter operator Celerity Educational Group. There was no public discussion of parents’ options or rights. McKinley is not a school that has resisted change; though low-performing, it has dramatically raised test scores in recent years. Some parents complained afterwards that they didn’t understand the petition they were signing; others accused school personnel of threatening and harassing them to get them to rescind their signatures. Meanwhile, the school district has set up a process for verifying the signatures that is harder on parents and more intrusive than is reasonably necessary.
The parent trigger was included in a hastily assembled law with the aim of winning a federal Race to the Top grant for California. That effort failed, and, for the moment, the state is stuck with the results. Most important is a public process. The petitions amount to elections; they force dramatic changes up to and including transferring the school to charter operators. Parent trigger must not become a means for private charter groups to get free school buildings through secret proceedings.
The McKinley experience shows that in order for the parent trigger to fulfill its potential, tinkering alone won’t do. Regulations by the state Board of Education, which were suspended after Gov. Jerry Brown appointed new board members, fall short as well. It will take new legislation to correct the gaping inadequacies of the first law. Those should include increasing the percentage of parents who must sign the petition to a supermajority; protections for schools that are showing meaningful improvement; requirements that schools inform all parents about active petition efforts and their right to participate; and public meetings in which parents and the community are informed about all their reform options. There must be better protections for the petitions as well: strict discipline against schools that try to discourage petitions by threatening or deliberately misinforming parents and tight rules to force school districts to respond openly, quickly and fairly to petitions, without burdensome obstacles for parents.
|
741f08f26c015eb0996c1ae487af8786 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2011-mar-16-la-ed-guns-20110316-story.html | Hold your fire, legislators | Hold your fire, legislators
The January shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona shocked and disturbed the nation, but one group is, perhaps justifiably, more freaked out by the incident than any other: elected officials. In response, bills have been introduced in such states as Montana and even in Congress that would make it easier for lawmakers to pack heat — the idea being that if politicians are armed, they can shoot back at a constituent who pulls a gun. This is the kind of over-the-top reaction one would expect in conservative, gun-friendly states, but when the trend hits California, some eye-rolling is in order.
Three state legislators have coauthored a bill that would make it easier for California elected officials to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Under current law, police chiefs or county sheriffs can award such permits to applicants who show “good cause” for needing one, meaning they have a dangerous job or their lives are under threat. The bill, SB 610, says the good-cause determination would be deemed to be met for any California member of Congress, statewide elected official or member of the Legislature.
The surprising thing about this bill isn’t just that it has appeared in California, which tends to favor restrictive gun laws, but that its coauthors are all Democrats who in the past have voted to limit gun rights for ordinary citizens. SB 610 was introduced by Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood, who in 2009 voted for a bill limiting the ability of residents from rural counties to use their gun-carry permits in large urban counties; another coauthor, Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani of Tracy, voted for the same bill. The third, Sen. Lou Correa of Santa Ana, voted for a Galgiani bill last year prohibiting the carrying of even unloaded firearms in the state Capitol.
It’s understandable that lawmakers are nervous in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Correa told The Times that he has been threatened with violence in e-mails and in person. But there are plenty of reasons not to like this bill. Shootings of public officials, Giffords notwithstanding, are a rarity; young inner-city men in gang neighborhoods are at dramatically higher risk of being victims of gun violence than politicians, but there is no rush to make it easier for them to carry guns (and that’s a good thing). Lawmakers who have received a specific threat can already make a case that they have good cause for a permit, without being awarded a special privilege. Armed lawmakers might feel safer, but there’s little to indicate they really would be, and the image of a panicked politician spraying bullets into a crowd is worrisome. This is one bill that deserves to be shot down.
|
de812040dc1672486466d11524d2986d | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-aug-02-la-ed-olympics-watching-at-work-20120802-story.html | The Games begin, and work stops | The Games begin, and work stops
Apparently so many Los Angeles City Hall employees are streaming coverage of the Summer Olympics on their office computers that the city’s chief technology officer warned them that it was interfering with the entire city cyber system. He sent an email beseeching them to quit watching the Olympics online.
Although this will no doubt feed existing suspicions that city workers are lazy, unproductive and living large off of taxpayer largesse, the fact is they’re not the only ones watching. A reported 12% of Americans said in a recent survey that they planned to check in on the Olympics at work during the day as NBC streamed the events online, live from London. And those are just the ones who admitted to it. One digital media company estimated that $650 million of, well, something will be lost by American companies because their workers are watching the Olympics at some point for some amount of time during the work day. (And it’s not just an Olympics phenomenon. Last spring, the first two days of March Madness — the period of the wildly popular NCAA men’s basketball championship — cost businesses an estimated $175 million in lost productivity.)
These numbers, and even the assumptions behind them, are debatable, of course. Some experts say you can no longer equate productivity with mere hours logged in the office.
Guide to the London Olympics: Can’t-miss moments
Perhaps the more urgent problem at City Hall, and elsewhere in offices across the country, is the strain put on computer technology systems by the Olympic-size number of at-work viewers. Watching the streaming coverage taxes a computer system’s bandwidth and can make a network sluggish, affecting everyone on it — including the people actually doing work.
Given that much of the country may be doing the same thing, the cyber hooky at City Hall may not deserve the level of self-righteous outrage voiced by some City Council members. (“That’s not what the taxpayers are paying them to do,” said a shocked, shocked Councilman Dennis Zine.) But city employees are under increasing scrutiny at a moment of budget cutbacks and amid concern about runaway pension costs. As irresistible as it is to keep tabs in real time on the drama of the Olympics — did Michael Phelps just win a record number of medals? did the Fab Five U.S. women gymnasts nab team gold? — it probably would be prudent if city workers did most of their Olympics watching after work, at home.
And for goodness’ sake, if you’re going to check the medal tally online, do it quickly.
|
8b9fbc859a313c9611b63cf699c84f9a | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-aug-03-la-ed-badminton-olympics-20120803-story.html | Badminton’s black eye | Badminton’s black eye
Badminton, which stands with cricket as the most British of sports, conjures images of heiresses in lace playing on manor lawns that stretch to the horizon, or blond young gentlemen at Eton in blindingly white sweaters and shorts. Developed by the British aristocracy in India in the 19th century, it has traditionally been a gentleman’s — sorry, gentleperson’s — game. So when eight women players from three Asian countries did something not quite cricket at the London Olympics, it hit the cloistered organization that oversees the sport like a shuttlecock slam to the groin.
The players threw their games in an effort to face less-talented opponents in future rounds of the round-robin tournament, missing easy shots, hitting serves into the net and otherwise playing less like Olympians than kids with a backyard badminton set from Target. This didn’t just anger the crowd; it violated the precepts of sportsmanship that are supposed to guide not only badminton but all of Olympic competition. The response from the Badminton World Federation on Wednesday was to eject the eight players from the Games, generating sharp discussion and controversy.
Was it the right move? Not in light of similar behavior in other Olympic sports, and not when one considers the increasing professionalization of the Games. Moreover, it seems an unduly harsh response given that none of the ejected athletes actually broke any rules; they simply made the rational decision to tank in one game in order to get a more favorable position in the medal round. Smart strategy isn’t the same as cheating. And yet … there is something comforting, even morally uplifting, in the idea that the old values of sportsmanship still matter. Or that the principle the International Olympic Committee refers to as “Olympism” carries some weight. The problem is, it isn’t particularly fair to enforce these values in badminton when the federations that control other Olympic sports aren’t doing the same.
PHOTOS: Olympics badminton controversy
As The Times recently reported, very similar behavior by the Japanese women’s soccer team was met with shrugs. The players were told by their coach not to score in their game Tuesday against South Africa, because a loss or tie would give them a more winnable matchup in the next round. It’s impossible to know how often such strategizing occurs in sports such as soccer, basketball and volleyball that employ round-robin tournaments, but we suspect it has happened many times before (although games are seldom tossed as flagrantly as the ejected badminton players from China, South Korea and Indonesia tossed theirs).
No matter what the sport, many would argue that gaming the system is just part of the game. Fans boo when baseball pitchers intentionally walk a powerful batter in order to face a less-reliable hitter, but most realize that this weighing of odds and player strengths is at the strategic heart of baseball. What’s more, it’s not too surprising that Olympic values have eroded when our perception of those values has shifted so radically over time. Created as a showcase for the amateur athlete from which professionals were banned, the Games now feature such pro superstars as Kobe Bryant and Serena Williams, and few fans seem bothered.
For all that, though, there still is such a thing as Olympic values, as expressed in the IOC’s charter — which all nations participating in the Games are obliged to uphold. It includes the seven principles of Olympism, of which the first seems most germane: “Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” Presumably, these principles don’t include playing like a scrub in order to improve your tournament position.
There is an obvious technical way to solve this problem: redesign tournaments to remove any incentive for intentionally losing. The IOC could also help avoid confusion by more clearly defining what it means in Article 2 of its charter about ensuring that “the spirit of fair play prevails.” More clarity on such matters would make future punishments like the badminton ejections less surprising or unexpected.
|
bc249125e6bf0952dc39d2315ba615d9 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-aug-28-la-ed-spinal-research-ab-1657-20120828-story.html | No traffic fines for research | No traffic fines for research
Who would be so cruel, so selfish, as to deny money for spinal cord injury research? Unless you wish further harm to people who are paralyzed or otherwise disabled by spinal injury, certainly you want Californians to open up their wallets to fund studies, right?
Boiled down to its basics, that is the argument behind the well-meaning but misguided AB 1657, which would tack $1 onto moving traffic violation fines to fund spinal cord injury research. The asserted but questionable nexus between traffic tickets and medical research is that tickets are issued to drivers who violate the law, those violations usually constitute unsafe driving, unsafe driving causes car accidents, and car accidents are a leading cause of spinal cord injury. The bill could as easily have been tailored for brain injury or major organ injury — if those research lobbies had gotten to the Legislature first.
We cannot keep running California like this. Outside interests, even those doing the often heroic work of medical research, can’t look to state taxes, fees and fines to fund their projects. The state’s budget problems are severe, and Californians face deep cuts in services they rightly expect their government to provide. The school year is on the verge of being shortened, courts are stuck in a paper-file era, and jails and alternative sentencing programs are underfunded. If the state is going to increase traffic fines — a big if — the resulting revenue should pay for those and other basic government services.
This bill bears some resemblance to the cigarette tax to fund cancer research in Proposition 29, which voters narrowly defeated in June. Of course Californians would like to cure cancer, and of course it would have felt good to deliver a blow to the tobacco industry. But that can’t be how we do medical research in this country, with Californians tackling cancer and, perhaps, Texans doing heart disease, Nebraskans taking on AIDS and the rest of the country hanging on to their wallets but accepting the benefits. States must pay for their own people and programs, with foundations and, sometimes, federal matching grants funding research. In California we started walking down a different road in 2004 with a state-bond-funded stem cell research infrastructure that has produced little benefit. It was the wrong road. We should turn around, not get further lost.
Any Californian may at some time face a traffic ticket. The fines, surcharges, double fees for construction zones, transaction fees and assessments already have to cover the cost of enforcement and court operations. They can’t cover every need or wish list.
|
822b6c35418dd7d9059dd54e26d312e1 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-dec-25-la-ed-naughty-nice-20121225-story.html | The Times’ 2012 list of the naughty and the nice | The Times’ 2012 list of the naughty and the nice
Santa’s not the only one who makes lists. As we reflect on 2012, we too have thoughts about who should look forward to a cheerful holiday morning and who deserves a lump of coal. Below, The Times’ reflections on who’s been naughty and who’s been nice. Merry Christmas!
NICE
Duncan Hosie, a gay freshman at Princeton University, was more than nice. He was brave and decent. Hosie offered Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a lesson in civility when he respectfully questioned the justice about his inflammatory comments comparing homosexuality to bigamy, incest and bestiality.
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck made us proud with his decision to limit the department’s participation in Secure Communities, a controversial federal immigration enforcement program. The chief’s decision means police will continue to hand over to federal authorities those immigrants with serious criminal records but not those arrested for minor offenses.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. surprised us with a remarkable act of intelligence and bravery when he exercised judicial restraint by voting to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
It’s easy to pick on the Legislature and the Los Angeles City Council, but both deserve some credit for real efforts to address costly public worker pensions. Reform advocates didn’t get as much as they sought, but even labor-friendly Democrats showed a refreshing willingness to rein in abuses and limit future liabilities.
Fox News is not usually high on our “nice” list, but this year it opted for journalism over politics on election night. It was among the first outlets to call the election for Obama, and stood by its decision when Republican strategist Karl Rove said it was too early to call Ohio and, with it, the election. Anchor Megyn Kelly memorably asked: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?” It can’t be easy to challenge Rove on Fox, but Kelly did it admirably.
Pope Benedict XVI, a traditionalist pope, recognized that his “new evangelization” required engaging 21st century communication tools. The pope opened a Twitter account under the handle @Pontifex, an allusion to “pontifex maximus,” a title originally conferred on pagan priests in ancient Rome but applied for centuries to the bishop of Rome.
California voters don’t always make the right decisions, but this year they passed Proposition 30, which provides money for public schools and community colleges and prevented draconian cuts to the California State University and the University of California systems. Voters also tempered the state’s “three-strikes” sentencing scheme and gave President Obama a 2-million-vote victory margin, nearly half of his margin nationally.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proved to be a savvy and successful stateswoman in turbulent international times. She leaves office more politically popular than ever, and we expect to be hearing more from her soon.
The new owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers deserve some credit too. The team struggled down the stretch, but the owners kept a promise to spend on players and now have a payroll roughly double the size of that under former owner Frank McCourt. Money doesn’t always add up to success in baseball, but we hope it will add up to more fans in the seats and a more entertaining team.
NAUGHTY
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was naughty — and cynical. Apparently worried about offending creationists, he gave this answer when asked by a reporter how old the Earth is: “I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created, and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.” After he was widely ridiculed, Rubio acknowledged that “it’s at least 4.5 billion years old.”
Republicans in the U.S. Senate suggested that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice deliberately misled the nation about the September attack on a diplomatic installation in Libya that killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador. Rice’s suggestion that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim video was incorrect, but she was conveying a preliminary assessment based on “talking points” drawn up by the intelligence community. This manufactured scandal figured in her decision to withdraw from consideration as secretary of State.
The California State University trustees and the University of California regents actually considered imposing new fee hikes just after voters passed Proposition 30, which saved the two university systems from dire cuts. Fortunately, intervention from Gov. Jerry Brown staved off the increases, at least for now.
Was Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri naughty or just stupid? He torpedoed his chances of winning a seat in the Senate by insisting that victims of “legitimate rape” could ward off pregnancy through some biological incantation, and his strange pronouncement hurt Republicans elsewhere too. The scariest aspect of Akin’s notion: The congressman used to sit on the House Science Committee.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to deny driver’s licenses to young illegal immigrants who qualify for what the Obama administration calls “deferred action.” That makes no sense because the whole point of deferred action is to protect these students from deportation and allow them to go to school. Especially embarrassing was Brewer’s insistence that state law prohibited Arizona from issuing the driver’s licenses; it later turned out that the state has issued licenses in the past to other immigrants who were granted deferred action.
New Jersey and Florida state education officials tried to bar U.S.-born college students — American citizens, for goodness’ sake — from receiving state financial aid or lower in-state college tuition if their parents were in the country illegally. That’s not just naughty. It’s mean. Thankfully, the courts stepped in to put an end to the foolish and discriminatory policies which merely discouraged bright young citizens from attending college.
Tone-deaf California Fish and Game Commissioner Daniel W. Richards shot a mountain lion while on a hunt in Idaho and posed for a photo, showing off the dead animal and his own poor judgment. Although lion hunting is legal in Idaho, it has been illegal in California for decades. Not only didn’t it occur to Richards that the photo might offend his California constituency, but he responded to 40 state lawmakers’ call for his resignation with a huffy letter telling them to back off. Lion hunting aside, his record on the commission shows he has been an abysmal steward of wildlife.
Paula Broadwell was naughty in a more traditional way. Her obsession with the married CIA chief David H. Petraeus prompted her to threaten another woman she apparently thought was also having an affair with him — a woman who happened to have a buddy at the FBI. The resulting scandal forced the resignation of Petraeus and later entangled Gen. John R. Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan; their sophomoric hijinks besmirched the reputations of these two leading military commanders.
With an estimated billion members and an initial stock price of $38 a share, valuing Facebook at $104 billion, many individual investors figured Mark Zuckerberg and the company’s executives knew how to make money for them too. Apparently not. Facebook’s IPO was great for insiders but bad for others. Investors have found there’s not much to “like” about its prospects as a growth stock.
Long after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has settled into retirement, Americans will remember his cynical dismissal of the “47%" who were beyond his campaign’s reach because they paid no taxes and were dependent on the government.
Director Peter Jackson split his adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” into three movies instead of just one. Was that really necessary? Does he really expect us to sit through all three? In any case, we hope Jackson is building a mountain cavern to hide all his gold.
|
c8622766ed01034bde22009fefa3c697 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-jun-17-la-ed-religious-liberty-20120617-story.html | Freedom of religion is safe | Freedom of religion is safe
Is religious freedom suddenly under attack in America? That’s what the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops and some non-Catholic allies would have you believe. But reports of the demise of this fundamental liberty are greatly exaggerated.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopshas designated June 21 to July 4 as a “fortnight for freedom.” During those two weeks, the church will trumpet its already well-known opposition to an Obama administration regulation that private health insurance plans include contraception services. The rule applies not to churches but to colleges, hospitals and charities that serve and employ non-Catholics. Even so, the bishops insist that it undermines their church’s religious mission to serve the larger community without compromising its beliefs.
The bishops are free to argue, including in court, that the contraceptive mandate is a violation of the church’s rights under the 1st Amendment and a 1993 federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (This page disagrees.) But some of the church’s rhetoric has been shrill and simplistic. One bishop compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin, who, “at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and healthcare.”
Equally excessive was the church’s response to the rejection Tuesday by North Dakota voters of a proposed Religious Freedom Amendment to the state Constitution. The measure would have allowed believers to disregard laws that offended their religious beliefs unless a “compelling government interest” were involved and the state used the least restrictive means possible to further that interest. It’s true that the amendment was modeled on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Clinton. It also was subjected to farfetched attacks, such as the argument that it would allow parents who beat their children to escape punishment because they were employing “biblical discipline.”
But in reacting to the amendment’s defeat, the North Dakota Catholic Conference said, “We will not rest until religious freedom in North Dakota is protected in the law as a fundamental human right.” Robust religious freedom — including an exemption for churches and religious schools from some generally applicable laws — is already protected in North Dakota and throughout the country by the 1st Amendment and Supreme Court decisions. Like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the North Dakota amendment would have provided protection for religion over and above what the Constitution guarantees.
The bishops and other critics can cry foul about the Obama administration’s policies, but they shouldn’t cry wolf.
|
2c3a738eed7c350815cf2793845595ce | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-nov-21-la-ed-gmo-natural-food-20121121-story.html | Just what is ‘natural’ food? | Just what is ‘natural’ food?
The campaign against genetically engineered foods didn’t disappear with the defeat of Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of most foods containing bioengineered ingredients. Instead, it morphed into the GMO Inside campaign, which among other things is behind a Colorado lawsuit that claims Goldfish crackers shouldn’t be labeled as “natural” because they contain genetically engineered soybean oil.
One provision of California’s Proposition 37 would have prohibited bioengineered foods from being labeled as natural. But the measure was so sloppily worded that it could have prevented almost any processed food from using the word.
Many grocery shoppers would not consider a food natural if its genes were tinkered with in a laboratory. By that logic, it might not make sense to consider a tangelo more natural than a genetically engineered ear of corn. Tangerines and grapefruits don’t cuddle up in nature; that was accomplished by man. White rice doesn’t naturally shed its layer of bran. So does intervention such as cross-fertilization or processing render a food not natural?
PHOTOS: Seven foods, genetically engineered
Until a couple of years ago, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was labeled as natural. Then the company came under pressure from the Center for Science in the Public Interest because the ice cream contained, among other things, partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Unlike genetically engineered foods, for which there is little if any evidence of harm to human health, partially hydrogenated oil has been implicated as an artery-clogging ingredient to be avoided. And you can bet the soybean oil didn’t hydrogenate itself. The company agreed to drop the “natural” label in 2010.
The real issue here isn’t whether GMO Inside believes that different methods of human tinkering make some foods less natural than others, but that the reassuring word “natural” is included on many a product’s label while meaning almost nothing. A 2009 study found that shoppers thought “natural” indicated a purer, more regulated substance than “organic.” It’s the other way around. But the whole point of rules for labeling is to allow people to make informed decisions about their food.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has considered defining the term a couple of times, and most recently gave up the effort in 2008. (Perhaps it should have started by trying to figure out what consumers consider natural to mean.) As the examples above show, attempts to regulate use of the word would be complicated, fraught with politics and would almost certainly involve multiple lawsuits by the food industry. (The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the less-complicated arena of meat and poultry, defines natural as “minimally processed,” but that doesn’t mean the animals were raised without antibiotics or hormones.)
The only times the FDA generally objects to the word “natural” is when it’s used to describe products containing artificial coloring, flavoring or “synthetic substances.” Could bioengineered DNA be considered a synthetic substance? Possibly.
Given how far food science has come in recent years, and the fact that consumers are so confused about what natural means that they are being misled by the wording on labels, the FDA should do the admittedly difficult work of deciding what is and isn’t natural — or tell food companies to eliminate the term altogether.
|
cea950ea5a7d3b9ddf7f4852221f5268 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-sep-12-la-ed-farm-bill-food-stamps-20120912-story.html | A farm bill, and food stamps | A farm bill, and food stamps
Midwestern farmers, facing uncertainty about their crops in the midst of the worst drought in half a century, have something else to steam about: Congress’ failure to pass a new farm bill, even though the old one is slated to expire Sept. 30. That may not sound so bad, because farm bills are invariably bloated with market-distorting corporate welfare for agribusiness that we’d be better off without. Yet they also fund the federal food stamp program, one of the most important strands of the U.S. safety net.
The Senate passed a version of the farm bill in June that cut spending on food stamps by a modest $4.5 billion over 10 years and trimmed overall spending by $23 billion during that period by eliminating direct payments to farmers, which are awarded whether or not they plant anything. That was a welcome change in an otherwise business-as-usual bill, which retained among other things the complex system of price controls and import quotas that force Americans to pay up to twice the global market price for sugar. Meanwhile, the Senate gave a new handout to farmers in the form of added subsidies for crop insurance.
For all that, the Senate bill is a wonder of progress compared with the version that passed through the House Agriculture Committee, which contained most of the Senate’s provisions but would have saved an additional $16.5 billion over a decade by trimming food stamps. The bill never made it to the House floor, but that wasn’t because of its stinginess; “tea party” Republicans didn’t think the cuts went far enough.
PHOTOS: Severe U.S. drought
The House cuts would have eliminated an option used by most states when ruling on whether applicants qualify for food stamps. That would have resulted in cutting off families with incomes below the poverty line but with gross incomes and assets that are slightly above the maximum for food stamps. (This could be because they have a bank account containing more than $2,000, which might be the only thing saving the family from penury in case of emergency.) Eliminating this group from the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have taken away food stamps from 1.8 million Americans and eliminated free lunches for 280,000 schoolchildren.
Insiders expect our paralyzed Congress to pass a one-year extension of the old farm bill rather than a new one, but eventually this country will have to address how much it is willing to pay to prevent hunger and to keep poor children nutritionally stable enough to pay attention in class. Even in the face of an economic downturn that’s causing food stamp participation to skyrocket, feeding the hungry should be considered a minimum requirement for a civilized, developed nation.
|
320b263c2996e41b475ae88a9019c1c2 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2012-sep-21-la-ed-0921-lifeguards-el-monte-gangnam-video-20120921-story.html | Ease up, El Monte | Ease up, El Monte
When a group of lifeguards and water safety instructors for the El Monte Aquatic Center got fired for making a video spoofing the hyper-viral “Gangnam Style” pop music video, no one disputed that they had violated city regulations. Even the college-age part-time employees themselves admitted that their video, intended as a fun memento of a summer at the pool, was, as a city statement says, “an unauthorized use of city resources and property.” (The resources? The pool and their red swimsuits.)
They should have been disciplined in some way for their misdeeds. But firing them seems like an outsized punishment for making an innocuous video, dubbed “Lifeguard Style,” the most offensive part of which was some uncoordinated dancing.
Public employees shouldn’t be using public resources for their own amusement or enrichment. At a time when small cities are being scrutinized for excesses and embezzlement, municipal governments should be vigilant. But this transgression hardly rises to the level of a Bell-type scandal, and these college kids seem to have thought only that they were being clever. Or more to the point, they didn’t really think at all about what they were doing.
Also, they apparently forgot the work agreement they signed, including the part about unauthorized use of city property being “cause for disciplinary action.”
Since the story broke, the video makers have scored hundreds of sympathizers (including the South Korean rap star Psy, who made the original “Gangnam Style” video) and more than 1.5 million hits on YouTube. El Monte city government officials were, meanwhile, caught in a difficult situation. Cities have a right to set rules and enforce them. And unauthorized use of city property can cause problems. Chances are fewer people would have balked if city officials had dismissed a group of firefighters for allowing their trucks to be used in a porn shoot — that actually happened in L.A., although no one was fired — or if police officers misused their weapons while making a video for their own fun. But there are levels of infractions, and as with any crime, the punishment meted out must match the severity of the offense. Lifeguards don’t have the same power or responsibilities as police officers.
The mayor has already called for an independent review of this incident and the way the city’s rules were enforced. City officials could consider mandating zero tolerance of any unauthorized use of company resources — whether by a cop or a tree trimmer — and deem it a fireable offense. But they should make that explicitly clear. Until then, our advice to El Monte city employees: Ask for permission first, not your job back later.
|
c10da27b1c72715014a2e19d91aaf987 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-feb-18-la-ed-drones-court-targeted-assassinations-20130218-story.html | A second opinion on drone strikes | A second opinion on drone strikes
The idea that the federal courts should play some role in deciding whether the government may kill U.S. citizens abroad allied with Al Qaeda has suddenly gained traction in Washington. During confirmation hearings for John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Intelligence Committee, said she would be considering legislation to establish a court to “review the conduct” of U.S. drone strikes. Brennan himself, asked by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) whether a court should scrutinize a decision to target a U.S. citizen for death, said the idea was “certainly worthy of discussion.”
Virtually all of the thousands of people killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen (some of them innocent bystanders) have been foreigners, so they wouldn’t benefit from any such legislation. As far as we know, only one U.S. citizen has been deliberately killed by his own government: Anwar Awlaki, who was targeted in a drone attack in Yemen in 2011 that also killed Al Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan, another U.S. citizen. According to the government, the New Mexico-born Awlaki had taken on an “operational” role with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and posed a threat to Americans.
Yet while Awlaki is the first American abroad to be assassinated by his own country, he may not be the last. The Obama administration has asserted that it has the right to target and execute Americans far from any battlefield, without charging them with a crime or offering them the opportunity to argue in their own defense. That’s a very troubling assertion that raises numerous moral and practical questions. But if the United States is determined to go down that path, safeguards certainly would be helpful. Involving the judiciary in future decisions to kill Americans would at least provide a check — a second opinion of sorts — on the choices of the executive branch.
At the Brennan hearings, Feinstein suggested that Congress could create an “analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” which rules on wiretaps in national security cases. If a comparable court were set up for targeted killings, there are a few ways it could work. Congress could require the government to provide the court with evidence about specific U.S. citizens and to approve or reject the placement of those individuals on a “kill” list. Alternately, the government might be required simply to seek the court’s approval for general policies for the targeting of U.S. citizens.
Either system would mean that someone outside the executive branch would review decisions that could lead to the killing of an American. Though that would not afford the intended target the due process provided by an ordinary court that meets in public and hears from lawyers for both sides, the extra protection would be better than none.
For judicial review of targeted killings to work, judges would have to overcome their traditional impulse to defer to the executive branch on matters involving national security. That would mean, for example, scrutinizing the Obama administration’s elastic definition of the sort of “imminent” attack on Americans that would justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen. A Justice Department memo leaked to NBC News suggests that knowledge of a specific impending attack might not be required to deem a threat “imminent”; a deadly drone can be dispatched because Al Qaeda leaders are “continually plotting” attacks.
If the new court is created, the judges should apply a more exacting standard, such as the one proposed by Awlaki’s family when it unsuccessfully asked a federal judge to remove his name from the kill list: A U.S. citizen outside a war zone couldn’t be killed “unless he is found to present a concrete, specific and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force” to neutralize the threat.
Judicial review isn’t a foregone conclusion. Many members of Congress are likely to oppose it, and Obama made no mention of the idea in his State of the Union address. He did, however, promise to work with Congress to ensure that “our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances.” Whether the targeted killing of an American, even with judicial review, would meet that test is debatable, but it would be an improvement.
|
b7939212c36417652b645b1109a9377c | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-mar-27-la-ed-animal-cruelty-ab343-20130327-story.html | Livestock abuse: The peril of ‘ag-gag’ bills | Livestock abuse: The peril of ‘ag-gag’ bills
A California Assembly bill that would require anyone who videotapes, photographs or records incidents of animal cruelty to turn over the evidence to authorities within 48 hours — or be charged with an infraction of the law — sounds like a tough new measure to crack down on abuse. It’s not.
In reality, it’s one of a crop of disturbing “ag-gag” bills being introduced across the country. Although AB 343 is not as bad as some others that ban outright recording and videotaping at animal facilities, it would effectively hamper animal welfare undercover investigators and employee whistle-blowers who are collecting information on systemic animal cruelty at meatpacking plants, slaughterhouses, livestock ranches and farms. It should be put out of its misery and killed quickly in committee.
The bill is sponsored by the California Cattlemen’s Assn., a nonprofit trade group representing ranchers and beef producers. Assemblyman Jim Patterson, the Fresno Republican who authored the measure, says it is a sincere and legitimate attempt by ranchers to deal with abuse as quickly as possible by compelling witnesses to bring their evidence to local authorities. Patterson contends that if someone stumbles across an incident of abuse, he should report it immediately and not attempt to collect more evidence. “Do you really have to have 10 animals abused? Isn’t one enough?” Patterson asks.
Unfortunately, one animal is not enough, and two days is usually not sufficient. It can take several weeks to document a pattern of abuse. A single incident, reported to a district attorney or police, is rarely enough for a strong case for prosecution and can easily be dismissed by the facility owner as a one-time occurrence, according to the director of undercover investigations for the Humane Society of the U.S. That’s why animal welfare groups don’t believe that the cattlemen’s aim is to protect animals. If that’s the intention, they say, the cattlemen should embrace thorough investigations of animal abuse, not suggest preempting them.
The investigator for the Humane Society who went undercover at the Hallmark/Westland slaughterhouse and meatpacking company in Chino in 2007 and videotaped so-called downer cows being forced to their feet with forklifts and electric prods and led into slaughter chutes — a violation of federal law prohibiting sick cows from entering the food supply — spent six weeks collecting about 20 hours of video. The organization turned over the footage to the San Bernardino County district attorney and later made some of it public. The result was the largest recall of beef in U.S. history and the eventual shuttering of the plant.
Besides, it is not a great idea to mandate reporting of criminal activity except by professionals dealing with cases of sexual or child abuse. Although people who witness criminal activity should be encouraged to report it, they should not be considered to have violated the law if they don’t.
No owner of a livestock operation wants to see undercover footage of employees hitting, kicking or mistreating animals go viral. The best way to guard against that, and also to protect animals, is for operators to monitor vigilantly the people they hire and make it clear that cruelty will not be tolerated — so that investigators won’t find anything at all to videotape.
|
c34fd5fe7ea8d5944242342124daef4b | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-may-31-la-ed-irs-tea-party-probe-20130531-story.html | The right way to investigate the IRS | The right way to investigate the IRS
The scandal surrounding the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of tax-exempt groups based on their political leanings has prompted investigations by at least four congressional committees and the Justice Department. The acting head of the IRS has been sent packing. And the hearings on Capitol Hill show no sign of abating.
The attention is appropriate because of the troubling questions the scandal raises about the agency’s independence. But the report that brought the episode to light — by J. Russell George, a Treasury Department inspector general — became politicized so quickly that those questions may be given short shrift. The criminal investigation will lead where it may, but we’re less interested in congressional Republicans’ efforts to tie the scandal to President Obama at any cost than we are in finding out how and why the IRS stumbled so badly, and coming up with solutions to fix whatever is broken in the system. That would be done best by a nonpartisan commission working outside the polarized confines of the congressional office buildings.
At issue is the way the IRS enforces the laws governing tax-exempt groups. In particular, the inspector general found that agency employees made inappropriate and intrusive demands for information from many conservative groups that applied for exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. Unlike charities, 501(c)(4) organizations can do a limited amount of political campaigning. The inspector general’s report shed no light on why IRS employees started singling out those conservative groups, why they sought donor lists and other seemingly inappropriate information, whether the IRS had conducted or still conducts reviews that are similarly focused, and what involvement, if any, Obama administration officials and members of Congress had in the extra scrutiny.
No matter what the answers are, the public needs to be assured that the IRS can enforce the law independently and fairly. The agency’s initial explanation — that low-level, politically tone-deaf employees were responsible — only reinforces the fact that IRS agents have tremendous power at their disposal, and they can misuse it for months before anyone stops them. Yet even the most apolitical IRS staffer might have trouble taking the politics out of Section 501(c)(4), because agency rules don’t draw a very clear line between groups that do too much political campaigning to qualify for the exemption and those whose political activity isn’t excessive.
Campaign finance reformers rightly complain that the IRS has been too permissive when it comes to political activity by 501(c)(4)s, which, unlike other groups involved in campaigns, can hide the identity of their donors. So the agency is being buffeted by accusations that it is both failing to enforce the law and that it is enforcing the law in a politically biased way. The IRS is never going to be a popular institution, but it can’t afford to be seen as serving a political master. The best way to restore confidence in the IRS is to impanel a commission with no stake in the 2014 election and no political ax to grind, and have it recommend whatever changes may be necessary to fix the problems it uncovers.
|
cef6c069e724bce961156f2ea0873c18 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-sep-18-la-ed-river-los-angeles-army-corps-of-engineers-20130918-story.html | A new course for the L.A. River | A new course for the L.A. River
While Los Angeles moves through the 21st century, much of its landscape remains locked up in 1940s concrete. The storm drain and flood channel that was and will again be the Los Angeles River is a case in point.
The good folks at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were heroes to the Los Angeles of the mid-20th century for controlling the river’s periodic rages. It’s hard to remember, when looking at the high concrete walls of the channel today, that the trickle of water in the bottom can go so wild so suddenly that in times past the river jumped its banks and emptied in various places along the shore — in what is now Marina del Rey or Seal Beach, for example — as often as at its now-fixed mouth at the Port of Long Beach.
From today’s vantage point, though, it’s easy to see that the intrusion of both concrete and control was excessive. The engineers, with their military precision and their focus on safety, turned what was once the city’s water source into its back alley, its sewer and very nearly one of its freeways. The river’s role in replenishing aquifers, sustaining plant and animal life and providing opportunities for human recreation evaporated as quickly as a splash of water on concrete in the hot September sun.
The corps of today has helped advocates of restoration and planners rethink the river by vetting and narrowing to four a range of alternatives, all of which would retain the flood-control capacity of the earlier projects while punching through the bottom of the concrete channel and reinvigorating the city’s primary artery and wildlife corridor. Those engineers could well become heroes to the city too.
And yet — they are leaning toward a plan that would do little to end the separation between the river and Angelenos. The justification is the higher cost of more ambitious alternatives. But the federal government has made it clear, through the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, that restoration is worth the public investment, that the Los Angeles River is a priority and that reconnecting urban communities to their waterways is a top priority.
The City Council supports an alternative that includes terraced walks that make their way down the banks, turning the riverfront into a park that welcomes residents and visitors. Angelenos have an opportunity, during a review and comment period that begins Friday, to advocate for that plan or any other that better incorporates the river into a more enlightened, sustainable and verdant 21st century city.
|
83c37bd43b93b22ed7ab1f0f63ec7621 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2014-feb-27-la-ed-measles-vaccination-20140227-story.html | California can’t afford to cater to the anti-vaccination crowd | California can’t afford to cater to the anti-vaccination crowd
The state of California issued an advisory on measles last week. Though only about a dozen cases have been reported so far, many more people have been exposed to the virus. In the Bay Area, thousands were warned to watch for signs of the disease after a man who’d been infected on a trip to Asia rode a BART train. In Los Angeles, far more people than necessary were exposed to measles because doctors failed to report two patients’ cases immediately. One had traveled to Asia; the other had been exposed to a recently infected traveler.
All three were unvaccinated.
Authorities haven’t said why these people were never inoculated, but there’s no question that the anti-vaccination movement is contributing to new outbreaks of preventable diseases by disseminating unfounded scare stories based on discredited research. Increases in measles and whooping cough offer evidence that failure to vaccinate is a public health concern that calls for tighter vaccination laws in California and elsewhere.
These outbreaks would be of less concern if they only affected unvaccinated people who had made the decision to take the risk. But that’s not the case. Vaccination doesn’t immunize every person who gets the shots; some of the recent California cases were among people who had been vaccinated. What’s more, some people have medical conditions that preclude being vaccinated. And some babies too young for the vaccine have died after contracting whooping cough. These three groups can be protected only by what doctors call “herd immunity.” Widespread vaccination keeps the disease out of the population, protecting everyone in it, including those without immunity.
A new law that took effect this year is aimed at reducing the number of parents who opt out of vaccinating their public school children. But Gov. Jerry Brown shot a big hole in it. The original legislation required parents who didn’t want to vaccinate their children to obtain the signature of a healthcare professional, showing that they had been informed about the benefits and risks of vaccination. A similar law in Washington state cut the refusal rate by half.
Brown signed the legislation, but then ordered regulators to create a religious exemption. Under the weakened rules, parents who claim that their religious beliefs don’t allow them to vaccinate their children can simply sign the form. It’s far too easy.
From our perspective, even the original legislation was weak. All schoolchildren, and all students in our state colleges and universities, should be vaccinated for highly contagious illnesses, except for those who need to be exempted for medical reasons. Mississippi and West Virginia do not allow religious exemptions, and California shouldn’t either. Religious beliefs must be protected, but they shouldn’t be allowed to erode public health.
|
fa758c2b0779f781562404492b9ba7ca | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-33rd-congressional-district-20140501-story.html | Endorsement: Matt Miller in the 33rd Congressional District | Endorsement: Matt Miller in the 33rd Congressional District
Rep. Henry A. Waxman’s announcement this year that he was stepping down after four decades in Congress unleashed a parade of contenders to replace him. Eventually, the list self-winnowed to 17 hopefuls who offer voters about as broad a smorgasbord of talents, dreams and ambitions as one could hope for.
Choosing among them raises a series of questions about what voters should be seeking in a representative. Does vision outweigh experience? Should a member of Congress be focused on bringing home funds and services for constituents or on solving the problems of the world and the nation? Should we prefer politicians who stand firmly for what they believe or those who know how to compromise and work cooperatively with others?
Voters will ultimately decide these questions for themselves, of course. But in weighing the candidates in the 33rd Congressional District — which runs along the coast from Rancho Palos Verdes to Malibu, and cuts inland to Brentwood, Bel-Air and Beverly Hills — this page put a premium on ideas, in the hope that a candidate who could articulate a broad vision with specific policy proposals to back it up could help revitalize the stalled conversations currently dominating Washington.
Upon close examination, the vast majority of the candidates proved not to be ready for that task. They range from one-issue drum-beaters to individuals unversed in their own policy proposals to those displaying a jarringly naive view of what the job entails. Of the several strong candidates in the race, though, it is Matt Miller, an author, radio host and professional policy wonk making his first run for public office, who is best suited for the job.
Miller wasn’t the only candidate who intrigued us. In many ways, Tom Fox, one of the new names, represents the current mood of voters. If Howard Beale, the bellower of the famous “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” line in the movie “Network,” ran for Congress, he would look a bit like Fox. A local lawyer and Democrat in the Barack Obama mold, Fox saw Waxman’s retirement as a chance to, in essence, put up or shut up. So he put up. We share his frustrations, but there’s more to effecting change than just going to Congress. It requires vision converted to plan converted to, one hopes, action.
Elan Carr, a Los Angeles County gang prosecutor and Army veteran, offered the best option among the GOP contenders. He is levelheaded and his positions are relatively moderate. For instance, he’s pro-environment and supports a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally. Were he to win, he would most likely end up in the majority in the House. Ultimately, though, his views skew too conservative for us.
The two best-known contenders are Wendy Greuel, who ran for mayor of Los Angeles last year, and state Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance). Both have done good work in public service and carry the crucial name recognition that helps win votes. Greuel has served both as a member of the L.A. City Council and as the city’s controller. This page was somewhat disappointed with her performance in the latter job, finding her prone to headline-grabbing audits and giving her an overall rating of “meets expectations.” Similarly, her current candidacy is weakened by a lack of specific policy ideas. Lieu offers more policy specifics, and he has been effective in Sacramento. But his vision is on the near horizon, and his best legislative successes have been in reaction to events, not in looking forward at how to shape the future. Either Greuel or Lieu would be a serviceable member of Congress, but Waxman’s legacy sets a higher bar.
This brings us to Miller, a long-shot political figure. Early in his career, Miller spent time at the Office of Management and Budget, then moved into a role as something of a professional public policy analyst and host of KCRW’s “Left, Right and Center” program (in which he represents the center). While he lacks experience as an elected official, that doesn’t seem to count for much these days, as the dysfunction in Washington is at least partly the fault of long-standing public servants and insiders. What Miller does bring to the job is a keen analytical mind and a set of creative and forward-looking proposals, from ideas for rejuvenating teacher selection, education and retention, to bringing down healthcare costs, to reforming campaign finance laws by focusing on greater transparency and disclosure.
While this page is not in sync with Miller on all of his positions, and while we wonder how much he will be able to accomplish as a freshman Democrat in what will most likely be a conservative House, we are taken with his potential. If the nation sincerely desires a change in Washington, it makes more sense to gamble on someone who articulates a different, better future than it does to send candidates who are embedded members of the system voters hope to change. The Times endorses Matt Miller.
|
014b01b4a5e5de73a2f73cd60bae8b26 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-cd11-city-council-district-11-20130221-story.html | Mike Bonin in Council District 11 | Mike Bonin in Council District 11
Los Angeles City Council District 11 begins at the bluffs of Pacific Palisades and crosses the coral tree-lined median of San Vicente Boulevard. It includes Westchester bungalows in the shadow of jets rumbling into LAX, and the homeless in Venice who bed down blocks away from expensive single-family houses. Apartment buildings — rentals and condos — tower across the region.
The district’s popular council member, Bill Rosendahl, has decided not to seek reelection as he battles cancer. His successor should be tough-minded and creative enough to work with the rest of the council on finding solutions to the city’s financial crisis, while also focusing on critical issues in the district itself, including development, the treatment of the homeless and the street-choking afternoon and evening traffic that has residents feeling trapped in their homes until it subsides.
Of the four candidates on the March 5 ballot, the best choice is Mike Bonin, Rosendahl’s current chief deputy.
ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013
Frederick Sutton, at 27, is the youngest contender. He has worked in corporate office leasing and marketing, he has acted, and he is currently a bartender. He was a board member of the West L.A. Neighborhood Council. He is affable, energetic and quick on his feet. But he needs a little more experience in community politics and issues before he is ready to step up to a council seat.
Tina Hess, a prosecutor in the city attorney’s office for 25 years, is sharp-minded and savvy about Los Angeles’ political system and bureaucracy. She correctly criticizes the Veterans Administration for doing an abysmal job of housing needy veterans in Los Angeles. She says she understands that homelessness is a complex issue that requires balancing the interests of the homeless and homeowners. But she supports a proposed city ordinance restricting group homes that this page opposed because it could create difficulties for groups such as the United Way that do responsible residential social service work. And although her plan to bring together teams of people from inside and outside government to address issues of development and traffic is an interesting one, some of Bonin’s proposals were more specific and more likely to lead to concrete fixes.
Odysseus Bostick, a middle school teacher, is straightforward, outspoken and independent-minded. He has a website brimming with ideas on how to solve the city’s economic problems, not all of them new but most of them sensible. More than any other candidate, he seems willing to zealously guard against poorly planned development that overburdens the local infrastructure.
VIDEO: Interviews with L.A.'s mayoral candidates
Bostick’s willingness to speak his mind is refreshing, but as a council member, he couldn’t be just a flame-thrower. To win battles for his district, he would have to cooperate and compromise with other council members and with residents, not all of whom would agree with him all the time. It’s unclear that he has the temperament for the job.
The best choice is Bonin, who has been Rosendahl’s top aide for eight years and previously worked for then-Councilwoman Ruth Galanter and then-Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice). For what it’s worth, Bonin has their endorsements, plus those of more than a dozen top labor groups and numerous community and environmental leaders. Outsider candidates often criticize opponents who serve in high-ranking staff jobs in City Hall, arguing that they are part of the system that landed the city in its current financial predicament. But being a City Council staffer is not the same thing as being a member of the council. Bonin seems ready and able to take the politicking skills he learned from his bosses and use them as well as — if not better than — they did.
He is a student of the district, well-versed on issues of traffic, homelessness and development. He knows that the homeless need permanent supportive housing and knows how to get projects into the pipeline. He understands that it has to be relatively easy for people to travel to the Expo rail line for them to take advantage of it, and he has some ideas for that. He pushed to bring to congested Venice a pilot program (already in use in Hollywood) for smartphone apps that tell drivers where a parking space is. He doesn’t exhibit the same level of passion for the issues and the people (and the animals) that Rosendahl does, but none of the candidates do.
Bonin has a calm and genial manner and offers a nuanced overview of the city as well as the competing interests in his district. Yes, sometimes he’s a little too politically slick. (At a recent forum, he unnecessarily praised Rosendahl so lavishly that even Rosendahl might have found it treacly.) But we are banking on Bonin to be a proponent of careful development. He unapologetically says the city needs someone labor trusts — like himself — at the negotiating table more than someone it despises. We don’t care, as long as he doesn’t give away the store or put the interests of public employees ahead of the fiscal health of the city and the legitimate needs of his constituents. If we could meld some of Bostick’s pluck with Bonin’s skill, we’d have a perfect candidate. Failing that, The Times endorses Bonin.
|
8851edae707db014c04ba0c3d35c4406 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-cd13-city-council-district-13-20130224-story.html | Mitch O’Farrell in Council District 13 | Mitch O’Farrell in Council District 13
Voters in City Council District 13 are choosing from a crowded field of 12 candidates vying to represent one of the most diverse and vibrant areas in the city, stretching from Hollywood across to Silver Lake and Echo Park and down through historic Filipinotown to Koreatown.
The district improved during the nearly 12 years it was represented by Eric Garcetti, but much remains to be done. Nearly 35% of its children live in poverty, and the median household income is just under $38,000. The next council member must promote economic growth in struggling areas while shielding neighborhoods that have found their economic footing from poorly planned development and gridlock. He must also address citywide issues — most important, helping to steer Los Angeles out of its perilous fiscal straits.
Of several strong candidates in the race, Mitch O’Farrell is best suited to meet these challenges. A former field deputy and senior advisor to Garcetti, he is articulate, tenacious and well versed on the district. He is highly regarded for his responsiveness and his ability to deliver service to residents and business. He has a firm understanding of the need for more affordable housing, and has called for a citywide blueprint to deal with the problem. He wants to revamp outdated zoning laws. He has specific proposals for cutting spending, including eliminating the Board of Public Works.
ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013
O’Farrell isn’t perfect. Like other candidates, he has promised to restore city services, including adding staffing at some fire stations, without explaining where he will find the money to do so. At the district level, he has not — nor have his opponents — focused much on the needs of residents other than those with clout, money and the right to vote. Nevertheless, he seems more ready than his rivals to perform effectively on the City Council.
Matt Szabo is experienced and politically shrewd. He touts his experience in helping pull the city back from the brink of insolvency as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s deputy chief of staff, and City Hall no doubt could benefit from a savvy negotiator who is knowledgeable about the budget process. But his vision for the 13th District is largely limited to bringing development to transit hubs in Hollywood and preserving Silver Lake, Echo Park and Atwater Village. Those communities need responsible stewardship to ensure that they continue to thrive, but Szabo may not prove as powerful or persuasive an advocate for neighborhoods that have yet to achieve economic stability.
John Choi has raised the most money in the race, but he’s not ready for the job. He has served as a commissioner on the Board of Public Works, but he still has a lot to learn about the district’s needs and how City Hall works. At one community forum, the candidates were called on to discuss the long-running battle over Barlow Respiratory Hospital, a century-old facility tucked into the hills of Elysian Park near Dodger Stadium. The hospital wants to sell part of its 25-acre site to a developer, which plans to build an 800-unit condominium complex. O’Farrell says he opposes the project. Choi professed to be unfamiliar with the details, demonstrating either ignorance of one of the hot-button issues in his district or an unwillingness to level with his would-be constituents.
VIDEO: Interviews with L.A.'s mayoral candidates
Also troubling was Choi’s statement at a Service Employees International Union endorsement meeting, where, as reported in the LA Weekly, he vowed that if elected, he wouldn’t “abandon” labor. “If you endorse me,” he said, “you’re going to be on the inside. We’re going to decide who to open the door for.” Aligning oneself with labor is one thing, but virtually promising to take unions into City Hall with him suggests a lack of independent thinking, or perhaps more more concern for labor than for his constituents.
O’Farrell is steeped in the needs of district residents and better positioned to advocate for the city on crucial budget issues. He is the best choice for the 13th District.
|
7c43e23b6ebeb70706ce46e0d0348aea | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-cd3-city-council-district-3-20130220-story.html | Bob Blumenfield in Council District 3 | Bob Blumenfield in Council District 3
Los Angeles’ 3rd Council District covers much of the southwestern San Fernando Valley, and the race there to succeed termed-out Councilman Dennis Zine parallels election matchups in other districts, featuring as it does a would-be transplant from the Legislature, Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, and a City Hall employee, Steven E. Presberg.
But there is a twist to what has become the usual template for council races: Presberg, an attorney, is no council staffer, and rather than representing the status quo, he rails against it. As for the other candidates, who have emerged from the neighborhood council system, all bring the desire to serve the district and yet most fail to present a workable platform for actually doing it. Except for one, attorney Joyce Pearson.
So for those voters who want neither a Sacramento import nor a City Hall usual suspect — and who prefer to send an angry message about a political system that too often preselects their candidates for them and leaves them stuck with bad options — there is a real choice. Those voters could back Presberg or Pearson.
ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013
But the goal shouldn’t be to send a message. It should be to select among the candidates running and pick the one with the best background, know-how, intellect, desire and ability to serve the district and the city, regardless of where that person comes from. Presberg and Pearson are standout candidates, but the best choice is Blumenfield. He’s not just another guy from the Legislature but instead has background serving the area as a representative of the federal and state governments. His expertise and record of service are unusual, and voters — even those irked by a pattern of lawmakers moving from the Legislature to the City Council — shouldn’t pass up the chance to select such a person for the council. The Times endorses Blumenfield for the City Council.
The 3rd District includes the communities of Woodland Hills, Canoga Park, Reseda, Tarzana and Winnetka. Warner Center is a major healthcare, office and retail hub and is in a sense the West Valley’s downtown. Development and resulting traffic congestion are big issues in the area. Canoga Park has seen a renaissance, and businesses and residents in Reseda have been hoping for something similar but face a challenge due to the elimination of the Community Redevelopment Agency. The task is in part to ensure continued economic growth without giving way to the kind of poor planning that has created a traffic nightmare on the city’s Westside; to keep gangs and crime from enlarging their current foothold; and to preserve the high quality of life, relative to that in many other areas of the city, that residents currently enjoy.
And the council representative must do all that while being a voice for fiscal pragmatism in citywide matters.
VIDEO: Interviews with L.A.'s mayoral candidates
Blumenfield worked for the residents of this part of the Valley as a representative of then-Rep. Howard Berman, first on Capitol Hill and then, in the wake of the Northridge earthquake, in the district. He is widely cited by business and community leaders as a guy who could cut through red tape to get funding to areas affected by the quake — areas that otherwise could easily, without aid, have become ghost towns. He spent his time in the Assembly on projects such as getting funding for renovation and widening of the 405 Freeway — money that the state repeatedly passed up until he arrived and used his knowledge of Capitol Hill to get the job done.
As chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, he had a major role in getting the state past its budget mess. He’s a liberal, but he recognized when it was necessary to cut spending, and how to mitigate the impact of some of those cuts on people by recognizing when federal matching and grant dollars were available. Those are skills badly needed in City Hall.
Presberg’s focus is on more global change at City Hall, and he is correct that employee pensions could, if left unchecked, overcome all other city programs. As one of the principal drafters of the current City Charter and as an assistant deputy mayor and then as an investigator in the Personnel Department, he has practical knowledge and experience to go with his critique of the status quo. And he brings what too few other candidates offer — the conviction that council members should think citywide and not focus exclusively on their own districts. But the approach leaves Presberg with less of a program than other candidates for dealing with actual nuts-and-bolts, quality-of-life issues in the district.
Pearson grasps the importance of economic development and its relationship to real estate development: The district cannot thrive as simply a bedroom community.
But it’s Blumenfield who is best positioned to bring the district what it needs while attending to the citywide budget crisis. He’s the candidate who would best serve the district and the city.
|
6d3f70c2d29ae6235188c055178039b7 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-cd9-city-council-district-9-20130224-story.html | David Roberts in Council District 9 | David Roberts in Council District 9
The 9th Council District in South Los Angeles suffers from a toxic combination of entrenched poverty, blight, high unemployment and lagging job skills. With its current representative, Councilwoman Jan Perry, termed out and running for mayor, it is seeking a replacement who can improve the district’s lot on a shoestring budget. Of the seven candidates in the field, the one who stands out as having the most thoughtful and achievable program to meet those challenges is David Roberts.
The key-shaped 9th runs directly south from Washington Boulevard to East 95th Street, with an offshoot extending north to Staples Center and L.A. Live. When the City Council redrew district boundaries last year, it carved out the most economically vibrant part of the district — a swath of downtown that included the financial district, Little Tokyo and the Fashion District — but added in the USC campus. The new district has almost 200,000 fewer jobs and a level of business activity that is among the city’s lowest.
Roberts is refreshingly clear-eyed about the limits the city’s financial straits place on its ability to improve the district’s fortunes. Instead of just arguing for more services and a larger share of the pie, he says the district needs to find alternative resources. In addition to tapping foundations and nonprofits — many of which he’s worked with — he would expand business improvement districts and shift some public safety funds into less police-centric approaches to deterring crime. One of his goals is to generate enough funds to put low-skilled, unemployed young adults to work removing litter, graffiti and dumped furniture and refuse from the business districts.
ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013
The focus on dumping and other impediments to the district’s quality of life makes sense; shabbiness is a daunting barrier to investment. Progress will require cleaning up the commercial corridors and developing a more capable workforce at a time when there’s a shrinking amount of local, state and federal money available for such efforts.
Success in the 9th is crucial not merely because failure saps the community’s spirit and requires crime- and blight-fighting resources needed citywide, but also because it could provide models for less-desperate but still cash-strapped parts of the city. One of the tests of the new council member will be to advocate vigorously for these South L.A. neighborhoods while helping to move the entire city to sounder financial footing.
The other candidates are short on skills, solutions or both. State Sen. Curren Price (D-Los Angeles) and former Assemblyman Mike Davis argue that their experience will help them deliver. But they offer proposals recycled from their years in public service, not new ones tailored to the district. The polished Price, for example, talks about the need for more affordable housing and cleaner streets without outlining any new ways to pay for them. And the genial Davis wants to combat unemployment by holding more of the jobs fairs and talent showcases he staged while he was a legislator, an approach that hasn’t made much of a dent in the problem.
VIDEO: Interviews with L.A.'s mayoral candidates
Ron Gochez, a high school teacher in the district and a community activist, has passion and creativity, and he shares Roberts’ focus on cleaning up the district and putting young adults to work. But his politics can be extreme, founded more in grievance and protest than in progress and opportunity.
Ana Cubas cites her personal history — born to working-class Salvadoran immigrants, she earned degrees from UC Berkeley and Princeton before landing jobs at the U.S. Department of Education and as chief of staff for Councilman Jose Huizar — as a model for the upward mobility she’d like to bring to the district’s families. But while she has political skills, she lacks a clear vision for how she’d transform her ambitions for the district into reality. Los Angeles Deputy Police Chief Terry Hara has a solid understanding of the needs of the 9th and its residents, thanks to three decades of service with the department spent largely in the gritty divisions of this district. But he offers no concrete approaches to solving the district’s problems. And Manuel “Manny” Aldana Jr., a UPS package sorter, offers little more than the fact that he’s the only candidate who’s actually lived in the district for more than a few years.
Roberts moved into the district last year when Perry appointed him to the commission that proposed new district lines. But his 11 years as a council staffer in the neighboring 8th District, including a stint as Councilman Bernard C. Parks’ director of economic development, give him a leg up on his rivals when it comes to understanding what it will take to bring dollars and jobs to the 9th.
A new spirit of activism is igniting the 9th District, but residents need support from their City Council member. Roberts is the candidate whose skills, connections and ideas best match the challenges ahead.
|
24f83ee5c8a7730f7ef7a6a46934c592 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-city-attorney-20130208-story.html | Mike Feuer for city attorney | Mike Feuer for city attorney
The city attorney of Los Angeles faces challenges that are complex and stubborn; the person who holds the office thus needs to bring creativity and sound judgment to it. He must provide forceful legal representation for the city. Misdemeanors need to be prosecuted in the context of making communities safer, not merely racking up convictions. City agencies need intelligent advice to guide their efforts and protect taxpayers from liability. The various candidates for the office this year each have the capacity to do part of the job well, but only one has the potential to do it all: The Times endorses former Assemblyman Mike Feuer for city attorney.
Feuer’s opponents in this campaign include the incumbent, City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, whom we endorsed for the job four years ago in his race against City Councilman Jack Weiss. In some respects, Trutanich has lived up to the hopes of those who supported him then. He’s been an independent voice in a City Hall with too few. And he’s doggedly fought to toughen the city’s reputation in court, resisting the temptation to settle lawsuits too quickly and thereby encourage plaintiffs’ lawyers to take advantage of the city.
And yet he has been a disappointment too. Trutanich once championed the neighborhood prosecutor program, only to preside over drastic reductions to it after taking office. (Admittedly, he had to make budget cuts, but in that case, he made the wrong choice.) He’s pursued headline-grabbing cases — vowing to eliminate ticket scalping, for instance, and battling with the owners of Staples Center over the cost of the Michael Jackson funeral — that are marginal to the lives of most of those he represents. He’s been a halfhearted advocate of openness in city business — the city today provides far less public access to police records and disciplinary hearings than just a few years ago — and he has struggled to guide the government toward a coherent policy on billboards and marijuana clinics. His representation of city agencies and officials has disappointed many of his clients, who complain about the quality of his advice and his slowness to act. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, with whom Trutanich should have forged a close working relationship, is backing Feuer.
ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013
Not all of that is Trutanich’s fault. Budget cutbacks have hurt many agencies, and lawyers are not always to blame for the actions of their clients — it’s not the city attorney’s fault if police officers, say, beat a suspect and the city is forced to pay. Still, his record includes little proof that his counsel has benefited the city, while there is ample evidence that his showboating has elevated his personal profile.
Trutanich’s histrionics are sometimes crowd-pleasers, but they aren’t the marks of a sober, seasoned counselor. Indeed, voters appear to have lost some faith in him as well. When Trutanich broke his word that he would not seek the office of district attorney and ran last year, he was soundly beaten, losing not just in the parts of the county that he did not already represent but inside the city as well.
Feuer, on the other hand, is an experienced, thoughtful and well-rounded public official and lawyer, one whose background has prepared him for this post. He has served on the City Council, where he tightened gun laws and improved constituent services; he helped bring about the city’s 311 service, for instance. And in the Assembly, he chaired the Judiciary Committee and wrote a number of important bills in areas such as consumer protection, public safety and environmental protection. Moreover, Feuer proved himself a capable broker, helping negotiate deals on environmental and other issues. He has extensive experience in public interest law — before entering elected life, Feuer ran Bet Tzedek Legal Services, one of the nation’s most highly regarded providers of legal services to the poor. He has shown both the creativity and the ability to serve as an exemplary city attorney.
VIDEO: Interviews with L.A.'s mayoral candidates
That’s especially important this year because Los Angeles faces a rough period ahead. Its finances are a shambles and will not be fixed by small adjustments here and there. The new leadership — the city is about to get a new mayor, a new controller and a raft of new council members — will need to explore every possible opportunity for containing costs and responsibly increasing revenue without deepening the city’s difficulties in attracting new business. Many of those solutions will require political will, a cooperative attitude among top officials and legal acumen as the city examines novel solutions that require legal analysis. Feuer’s background as a legislator and lawyer ideally prepare him for that task.
There are two other candidates in the race, but neither has the breadth or depth of experience to warrant the position. Greg Smith is a successful private lawyer who has made a small fortune suing Los Angeles and other municipalities that mistreat their employees. He would, no doubt, be an effective advocate for the government were he to be elected and find himself on the other side of lawsuits such as those he’s brought. But that’s just one aspect of the job. He offers no thoughtful argument for himself as a prosecutor or as a counselor to the government.
Noel Weiss, meanwhile, is a conscientious candidate who offers some intelligent criticism of the current government, which he considers removed from the people it serves. Some of his ideas, however, seem more like slogans than deeply considered responses to the city’s difficulties. He proclaims, for instance, that City Hall is guilty of “too much love of power … and not enough power of love.” He may be right, but he’s raised no campaign money and has done little to expand the important debate over the office he seeks. The city needs more in its top lawyer.
Some races pit candidates of comparable merits in competition and force voters to make tough choices. This is not one of them. Feuer is by far the strongest and most worthy candidate for city attorney.
|
7e44e7fb26598df61fb23747331c89cb | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-endorsement-recap-20140527-story.html | Endorsement: June 3 primary election: The Times recommends | Endorsement: June 3 primary election: The Times recommends
The Times has offered its recommendations in many of the races in the June 3 elections and has posted them at latimes.com/endorsements. We endorse selectively, and this year have focused on the county and statewide races, on judicial elections, and on the races to replace two longtime members of Congress who are retiring — Democrat Henry A. Waxman and Republican Howard “Buck” McKeon.
As a result of two recent initiatives, primaries are no longer controlled by political parties, and voters can vet all candidates regardless of political affiliation.
Here are short summaries of our choices:
Governor: Jerry Brown. Most of California’s challenges remain before us, but Brown has been able to take action on many of them, moving the state from deep financial distress to a welcome, if temporary, surplus. Voters would be wise to keep him on the job.
Lt. governor: Gavin Newsom. Newsom has been unable to do much more with the office than have his predecessors. Still, he’s a competent understudy and better suited to assume the role of governor than any of his challengers.
Secretary of state: Pete Peterson. Peterson, a Republican, is the candidate best suited for the kinds of tasks entrusted to this office: safeguarding and promoting elections, and making campaign and business data available to the public in a useful form.
Controller: Ashley Swearengin. Fresno Mayor Swearengin has demonstrated her skill in leading her city through its economic crisis, and is the candidate most likely to perform well as the state’s chief financial officer.
Treasurer: John Chiang. Chiang, a tax lawyer, has worked his way up through California’s financial offices, from the Board of Equalization to state controller. As treasurer, he would likely do a responsible job managing the state’s investments.
Attorney general: Kamala Harris. Harris’ highest-profile move during her first term was getting Californians better terms in a settlement with banks over improper foreclosures. None of her challengers makes an adequate case for removing her from office.
Insurance commissioner: Dave Jones. Jones has proved to be an active but thoughtful regulator of the insurance industry, fighting for consumers without driving insurers from the state.
Superintendent of public instruction: Marshall Tuck. School reformer Tuck is a better choice than incumbent Tom Torlakson, who has brought too little vision or leadership to the job.
Los Angeles County Superior Court judge:
Office 22: Pamala Matsumoto
Office 48: Charles M. Calderon
Office 54: Debra L. Losnick
Office 61: Jacqueline Lewis
Office 76: Alison Matsumoto Estrada
Office 87: Andrew M. Stein
Office 97: Songhai “Sunny” Armstead
Office 107: Emma Castro
Office 113: Stacy Wiese
Office 117: James B. Pierce
Office 138: Donna Hollingsworth Armstrong
Office 157: Andrew Cooper
Assessor: John Morris. The L.A. County tax assessor’s office needs a competent administrator to move past the single term of John Noguez, who is currently facing corruption charges. The best choice is Morris, a deputy district attorney.
Sheriff: Jim McDonnell. The Long Beach police chief and member of the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence is easily the best of seven candidates to remake the Sheriff’s Department and end a culture that has allowed abuse of jail inmates and mismanagement of resources.
Supervisorial District 1: Hilda Solis. The former U.S. secretary of Labor and member of Congress remains something of an unknown quantity in her approach to county government, but is far and away more qualified than her two opponents.
Supervisorial District 3: John Duran. West Hollywood City Councilman Duran offers the best combination of fiscal responsibility and passion for the needs of county residents living on the margins.
School board: George McKenna. In the race to fill the Los Angeles Unified School District board seat left vacant by the death of Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte, the best choice is McKenna, for his independent thinking.
Proposition 41: Yes. This measure would convert a housing bond for veterans into funding that would also help house low-income and homeless veterans in rental units, putting the same money to use for the vets who are in the greatest need.
Proposition 42: Yes. The measure would compel local governments to continue fulfilling their duties to make meeting agendas and other documents available to the public.
U.S. House of Representatives District 25: Lee Rogers. Rogers, a Democrat, supports raising the federal minimum wage and believes in comprehensive immigration reform, unlike his conservative opponents.
U.S. House of Representatives District 33: Matt Miller. Miller brings creative proposals for rejuvenating teacher selection, education and retention, bringing down healthcare costs, reforming campaign finance laws and a host of other issues.
|
b2f1a13c55e9baaf3127cb83ba1bcdcf | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterthefray/la-ol-new-york-rhode-island-congress-marijuana-20190116-story.html | How long can Congress keep pretending marijuana legalization isn’t becoming the norm? | How long can Congress keep pretending marijuana legalization isn’t becoming the norm?
It’s only January, but 2019 could be the year that a Green Wave of marijuana legalization sweeps across the country. Will it finally hit Washington, D.C., and force Congress to reform the nation’s woefully outdated marijuana laws?
New York and Rhode Island are on the cusp of making recreational marijuana legal under their states’ laws after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Gov. Gina Raimondo announced this week that they’ll present plans to allow the sale and adult use of recreational marijuana in their states.
This is significant for several reasons.
It’s a sign of the momentum, even the inevitability, of legalization that Cuomo and Raimondo — both longtime skeptics of loosening the prohibition of recreational pot — are leading the effort to create legal, regulated marijuana marketplaces that flout the federal strictures.
Raimondo essentially said her state had little choice but to end prohibition.
“I will say, I do this with reluctance,” Raimondo told the Providence Journal last week. “I have resisted this for the four years I’ve been governor. ... Now, however, things have changed, mainly because all of our neighbors are moving forward” with legalization.
Massachusetts voted in 2016 to legalize adult recreational use. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are expected to do the same this year. At that point, it’s foolish to think a state, particularly one as small as Rhode Island, can enforce marijuana prohibition when it’s a legal product a short drive away. It makes more sense, Raimondo said, for the state to come up with its own system to tax and regulate pot.
Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute »
That is also a noteworthy change. The first states to legalize marijuana, including Colorado, Washington and California, did it through ballot initiatives. Now, governors and legislatures are making the decision. The politics of marijuana have changed, and lawmakers are increasingly framing legalization as a progressive, good-government policy.
Cuomo, who called marijuana a “gateway drug” as recently as 2017, said in December that legalization would help address the racial disparities and inequities of how marijuana laws have been enforced. Black people and other minorities have historically been arrested and charged with marijuana crimes at much higher rates than white people.
“We must end the needless and unjust convictions and the debilitating criminal stigma. ... Let’s legalize the adult use of recreational marijuana once and for all,” Cuomo said in December.
Notably, New York and Rhode Island are just the first states to act this year. Governors in New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and Minnesota have also pledged to push for legalization in their states, and they generally have support in their legislatures.
As more states vote to legalize adult recreational use, they are creating a powerful coalition against the federal government, which continues to classify marijuana as an illegal Schedule 1 drug on par with heroin.
It becomes harder for the federal government to crack down on a state or city for licensing marijuana businesses when vast swathes of the country have decided to legalize recreational cannabis. Of course, that threat was already much reduced after former Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions — a staunch opponent of legalization — left the Trump administration.
It also becomes increasingly difficult for Congress to keep its collective head in the sand on marijuana. Amazingly, despite the fact that 10 states have legalized recreational marijuana and 33 allow marijuana for medicinal use, the federal government has still failed to acknowledge the shifting politics.
That has created an illogical morass of conflicting policies. The most obvious is that state-licensed marijuana businesses have to conduct business in cash since banks and financial institutions won’t serve pot companies for fear of being penalized by federal regulators. And it has made it more difficult for researchers who rely on federal funding to do much-needed studies on the health effects of marijuana.
A handful of pro-legalization members of Congress have, again, introduced bills to allow adult recreational marijuana and to regulate it like alcohol. It’s a bipartisan group from across the country, though tilted toward Democrats. The real question is: When will the momentum at the state level reach Congress and the White House?
|
26ada93695ab36e2b432f9a25e1995cd | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-becerra5-2008dec05-story.html | Becerra’s a bad choice for trade post | Becerra’s a bad choice for trade post
Deep down, we had hoped Barack Obama was fibbing when he bashed the North American Free Trade Agreement on the campaign trail. After all, his senior economic policy advisor had, according to a leaked memo, assured Canadian officials that the talk was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” Yet amid reports Thursday that Obama had offered the crucial job of U.S. trade representative to a dyed-in-the-wool protectionist, it seems he was disastrously serious all along.
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) could become the administration’s point person on international trade. He’s a terrible choice, and not just because of a history of unsavory behavior -- such as his successful efforts to win a pardon from President Clinton for convicted cocaine kingpin Carlos Vignali, or the screamingly unethical robo-calls his campaign engineered during his run for Los Angeles mayor in 2001. Becerra is a leader of the Democratic Party’s protectionist wing, which opposes NAFTA, the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement and most other trade deals.
Free trade irks many liberals because it can shift American jobs to other countries, but it almost invariably does more good than harm, lowering prices for goods and creating new jobs to make up for those it displaces. What’s more, history shows that the last thing the country should do during an economic downturn is become more protectionist. A year after the market crash of 1929, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising U.S. tariffs dramatically in an attempt to protect jobs. It fueled a global meltdown that greatly worsened the Depression.
Sometimes political hypocrisy gets a bad rap. If Becerra turns the job down, and we deeply hope he will, Obama should break his promises and appoint a free-trader as trade representative.
|
b3d96ca16dd2581e0b7cdd82460046c8 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-moss-pope-francis-women-20141208-story.html | Op-Ed: Pope Francis’ woman problem | Op-Ed: Pope Francis’ woman problem
At first, it was easy to overlook. With all of his statements about caring for the poor, the disabled and immigrants, and all the fanfare surrounding his famous “Who am I to judge?” proclamation, Pope Francis seemed like a breath of fresh air for a church stuck resolutely in the past. The fact that he never commented on the long-standing marginalization of women in the Catholic Church, and asserted quite plainly that there would be no ordination of women, did nothing to dampen progressive enthusiasm for the new pope. There has been a hopeful sense that he would get around to it eventually.
He hasn’t, however, and there is reason to question whether he ever will. Instead of a more compassionate and understanding take on the standing of women in the church, Francis has repeatedly embraced the traditional Catholic view that a woman’s role is in the home.
Ten days ago, Pope Francis organized and addressed an interfaith colloquium on the subject of “The Complementarity of Man and Woman in Marriage.” The use of the doctrinal term “complementarity” signals the conservative underpinnings of Francis’ views on marriage. The religious teaching of complementarity holds that men and women have very different roles in life and in marriage, with men outranking women in most areas. Although Francis did acknowledge that complementarity could take “many forms,” he nonetheless insisted that it is an “anthropological fact.”
Last week, in chastising the European Parliament on the subject of immigration policy, Francis provided another alarming insight into his attitudes toward women, this time in his choice of metaphor. He described Europe as a “grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant,” but instead “elderly and haggard.” At 77 years old, presumably Francis still thinks himself relatively vibrant and useful to society. Women of his age, however, have apparently outlived their utility.
Francis has made it clear that he sees childbearing and child rearing as crucial womanly roles.
But his remarks about European immigration marked the first time Francis has used the natural loss of fertility and change in appearance that accompany aging to cast a moral judgment. By selecting the image of an aging woman — someone who is, to use Francis’ words, no longer “relevant” to the world — is nothing other than crass chauvinism. Francis has elsewhere condemned our modern “throwaway” culture that discards the elderly, but here — when the subject is exclusively female — he demonstrates the same attitude.
Even when ostensibly elevating women, Francis reveals a highly patriarchal view of where their value lies. In a July statement that many took as a positive sign, he said that women are “more important than bishops and priests.” But it is unclear just how progressive we should understand that statement to be. Repeatedly, Francis has come back to extolling the role of women specifically as mothers, noting that “the presence of women in a domestic setting” is crucial to “the very transmission of the faith.”
To his credit, Francis has called for an expansion of women’s participation in the life of the church, and he has said that “the role of women in the church is not only maternity, the mother of the family.” But he seems to have trouble articulating that role in non-maternal terms, or at least in terms that are not circumscribed by the familial: “I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood.” Although women may have lives outside the home, Francis has urged that we not “forget the irreplaceable role of the woman in a family.”
It is too much to expect, even with Francis at the helm, that the church would decide to admit women to the clergy. But it would be no violation of doctrine to recognize women as contributing to the life of the church, as being intrinsically and equally valuable, regardless of their familial role or fertility. Francis has had many opportunities to express these sentiments, yet he hasn’t. It’s hard not to conclude that he sees procreation as the end goal — and the functional utility — of a woman’s life.
Candida Moss is professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. Joel Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. They co-wrote the forthcoming “Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness.”Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion
|
99a2fd72d407a3f665ef9debe9189d4a | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-zirin19-2008nov19-story.html | Game on: Pros and big-league politics | Game on: Pros and big-league politics
Howard Cosell called it “rule No. 1 of the Jockocracy”: the idea that sports and politics must never mix. This last election season though, that iron wall separating the two worlds wasn’t merely breached, it was flattened.
It has been little reported and even less discussed, but the very same energy that coursed through the body politic for “hope” and “change” made its way into that at-times-explicitly-apolitical space, the pro sports locker room. In the National Basketball Assn., for example, superstar LeBron James held fundraisers and wore Obama T-shirts to the arena. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics wrote slogans like “Vote for Change” on his high tops. Even Carmelo Anthony, who several months back said he wouldn’t endorse Barack Obama because Democrats and Republicans “both buy my shoes,” pledged to strive to score 44 points the night after the election in honor of Obama, the 44th president. (He only scored 28, which I suppose was a tribute to Woodrow Wilson.)
In baseball, World Series champion Philadelphia Phillies captain Jimmy Rollins did a rally with Joe Biden. In football, Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall talked after scoring a game-winning touchdown about how Obama “inspires me, our multicultured society.” Scott Fujita, linebacker for the New Orleans Saints, even told me that there are football players in the locker room arguing with other players that their taxes should be raised to help get the country out of debt and despair. That is unheard of. Similar arguments about money and greed were raised by NBA players Al Harrington and Tyson Chandler.
It’s worth noting that Obama didn’t get all the sporting energy. Retired NFL Hall of Fame quarterbacks John Elway, Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman all rallied for John McCain. Note what they all have in common: The older and lighter complected on the athletic scale, the more support leaned toward McCain. In other words, the sports world was not all that different from the real world. Also, pro sports owners filled McCain’s coffers with contributions by a 6-1 margin.
One would have to, as Marshall noted, go back four decades to see such a display of the sporting and the political. All that time, the guiding political ethos of the professional athlete could be best summed up by Michael Jordan’s statement that he wouldn’t stand up against North Carolina’s arch-right-wing Sen. Jesse Helms because “Republicans buy shoes too.”
Now, we may have seen the end of that era. The new era might be best summed up by Baron Davis, who, when told that his support of Obama might cost him endorsement possibilities, responded, “Like I give a ... .”
It also is a reminder that athletes don’t live on “planet jock,” coming down to Earth to entertain us at game time. They are part of the world as well and have their own stake in seeing a measure of change. The truly fascinating story to come will be seeing what happens to all of this energy once the inauguration speeches are done and the smoke has cleared.
There of course is a tradition of the political athlete, from Muhammad Ali to Billie Jean King, but it’s a tradition that in recent years seemed a relic of a musty past. The idea of athletes, with their short playing careers, risking the wealth and attendant privileges of stardom seemed ludicrous.
But today it has been revived, in no small part because of two factors: first, the excitement and multicultural pride surrounding Obama’s run. No question, basketball and football -- disproportionately populated by people of color -- have been sites of serious inspiration. And there is also the stubborn fact that although athletes may make terrific money, they tend to come from families living in hard times.
Chandler, once a star at Compton’s Dominguez High School, reflected this tension in his endorsement: “I’m obviously the only one in my family that can say that I’m a millionaire. I’ve seen my entire family struggle. So, would I rather see my whole family struggle while I get a break, or have me not get a break while the rest of my family gets one? I’ll take my entire family getting a break.”
Will athletes maintain their political engagement, or will it quickly go back to business as usual? One thing is certain: The sports page just got a lot more interesting.
Dave Zirin is the author of “A People’s History of Sports in the United States.”
|
fd9a9327cdaed18ac821bd952f10922a | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-debord12-2008may12-story.html | Terroir-izing California wine | Terroir-izing California wine
So Alice Feiring, in her Op-Ed article, “California wine? Down the drain,” on the Golden State’s innovative and widely admired wine industry, thinks that "[d]ull, fruit-driven, alcoholic wines have become the incontrovertible wine identity of California.” I was immediately reminded of a line from Whit Stillman’s 1998 film, “The Last Days of Disco.” Young people are bantering on the topic of “yuppies” and whether that’s a desirable designation, when one of them says, “Young. Upwardly mobile. Professional. Those are good things, not bad things.”
California wine is the yuppie of global beverages and, at the moment, under assault from a cadre of wine writers, filmmakers and importers who have taken an ultra-conservative, borderline Luddite stance toward its incontrovertible dominance of the global wine business. (They are not, as they would like to be perceived, plucky independent thinkers who are bucking a mega-trend.)
Powerful fruit -- the product, for the most part, of extremely well-cultivated grapes, not technological manipulation -- is suspect. Alcohol, the result of the high levels of ripeness that California winemakers can achieve, is also a problem. Any whiff of technology in the winery, regardless of the magnificence of the product, needs to be indicted as if it were some unholy transgression against an ancient winemaking pact. Thou shalt not useth the demon oak. Beware the reverse-osmosis heresy. Pick not thy grapes when they art ripe, but rather pick them when they art green and unripe, the better to filleth thy wines with Old World structure and weird herby flavors.
It would be fine if this cabal kept to itself and sneeringly consumed its various backwater French bottlings -- for it’s essential that the competition be obscure, the better to support its “discovery” -- in grim silence. But, being members of a largely East Coast collective, they feel the need to capitalize on their proximity to both the major media and the “Old World” -- France, Italy, Spain -- by taking loud pot shots at California. Feiring of course makes no mention of the multitude of extraordinary wines from the state, many of which exhibit all the Old World complexity and balance anyone could ask for. She prefers instead to bang away at those that (allegedly) showcase too much ripeness, too much alcohol and, despite these alleged flaws, still cost too much.
For some time, Feiring and her cohorts have latched on to a singularly esoteric concept, taken from French wine lore: terroir, which basically refers to the way a wine reveals the place it came from. Terroir was first pitted against California wines when, after a brief hippie heyday in the 1970s when every winemaker was brewing up some scrumptious all-natural low-alcohol gem in a Silverado Trail shanty, California wine settled into a period of dreary brilliance, with it all tasting the same -- that is, wonderful. A dazzling sequence of great vintages, with wines based less on sense of place than quality in the bottle, represented a pretty decisive refutation of the terroir ideology. Bold cabernets and buttery Chardonnays trumped the pinched pencil-lead of first-growth Bordeaux and the ashen angularity of Grand Cru Burgundy.
When that gambit collapsed, the “terroirists” lambasted California -- which by this time had become the most successful winemaking region in the history of, well, wine -- for imposing a bland style on the rest of the world. America promotes democracy and market capitalism. California promotes wines that don’t suck. This cannot stand. The monumentally influential wine critic Robert M. Parker Jr. intensified the rage of the terroirists when he seemed to delight not in merciless, ironclad tannins and funky bacterial subtexts (which were probably due to cellar contamination) but the majesty of beautiful fruit.
The notion that a great wine could actually taste good right away and not 30 years later, once its general absence of ripeness had been replaced by strange flavors and odors, appealed to most consumers, so the terroirists needed to find a new stick with which to whack California. And being naturally fearful of technology in the hope they could restore the wine world to its Victorian-Communard Elysium, winemaker intervention became the new whipping boy. Pity the vintner who decided to mess around with what Mother Nature had given him. Quality in the bottle? Irrelevant!
This latest maneuver has morphed into a witch hunt, with the terroirists determined to nail any winemaker who embraces intervention, as if he were trying to defraud his customers. The struggling little vintner of France, with his allegiance to earth, sky and prelapsarian cellar, is now held up as the ideal, irrespective of the possibility that he would throw it all away for one lousy vintage that served up California-grade ripeness.
It’s pure gobbledygook. Anyone who has recently enjoyed a wine from Ridge, Au Bon Climat, Flora Springs, Joseph Phelps, Far Niente or literally hundreds of other California wineries knows that California wine is better than fine. And hey, if the terroir crowd wants to savor French wine and nothing else, no problem. Just don’t label California wine, something that pretty much everyone wants to drink, as “undrinkable.” I know the falling dollar has them running scared, as “overpriced” California wine is now a phenomenal bargain, but complete misrepresentation is better left to professionals. Like the long-dead and anonymous French marketing genius who, staring at a sea of swill, first muttered “terroir” and set this mad, dishonest joust in motion.
Matthew DeBord is a former editor at Wine Spectator and the author of “Wine Country USA.”
Blowback is an online forum for full-length responses to our articles, editorials and Op-Eds. Click here to read more about Blowback, or submit your own by e-mailing us at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
bd4ec9a604a85644ad1b70baa189d741 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-green-thornberg27-2009feb27-story.html | Putting off the real day of reckoning? | Putting off the real day of reckoning?
Today’s topic: The streamlined approach to modifications that the administration advocates has the potential to avert far more foreclosures than the case-by-case approach taken by many lenders. Yet it also ignores personal debt loads, which are a critical factor in determining a borrower’s ability to repay. Is there a better way to speed the process so that more needless foreclosures can be averted without simply kicking the foreclosure can down the road a few months?
This week’s complete Dust-Up: Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4
The pain is temporary, and we must go through itPoint: Christopher Thornberg
The homeowner rescue plans so far have been failures. Either few troubled borrowers have signed up or, more significantly, within just a few months of having their loans modified a shockingly large portion of the borrowers are back in default. The entire rescue process has accomplished little more than increasing the cost to the banks by extending the foreclosure process that much longer.
There are two possible explanations for this re-default problem. One is that the programs simply don’t acknowledge that with loans sharply underwater, folks have little incentive to maintain their mortgages even when payments are being lowered to something more affordable.
It has been claimed that past studies have shown that being underwater is a necessary but not sufficient condition for foreclosure. I would argue that we have never had a housing downturn as dramatic as this one, with people so desperately underwater, and we have never had so many families with such small stakes in the game (witness no-money-down mortgages with initially negative amortization payment levels). As such, past data points offer little in terms of comparison to the current situation. From this perspective, borrowers go along with the mortgage modification plans simply to maintain their housing situation for a few extra months.
The second potential explanation is that these mortgage programs do not screen their applicants for other potential issues, such as the loss of income due to the downturn, debt burdens outside the mortgage or perhaps even verifying income to see if the new “affordable” payment is in fact affordable. As we now know, even with mortgages where incomes were supposedly verified, brokers quickly learned how to game the system in such a way as to not trigger further verification efforts. In other words, many of those prime loans were not.
President Obama’s plan is another one-size-fits-all scheme without much effort to distinguish between those who have a reasonable chance of having a workout succeed and those for whom the workout represents little more than a few extra months of free rent. It relies on one streamlined effort to reduce payments with little effort made to try to distinguish those who might be helped from those for whom help is useless.
Is there a better way? Should we study these mortgages on a case-by-case basis? Perhaps -- but the industry has little incentive to make the investments to deal with such complexities. Remember that during the bubble, a mortgage company earned 2% or 3% of the value of the loan for closing a mortgage. This amounts to $5,000 to $10,000 per mortgage in higher-priced markets with little cost to the broker, given all the rapid computerized systems being used to place the money. With this revenue flow gone, the industry has rapidly shrunk. Now the administration is offering a paltry $1,500 per mortgage to servicing companies that try to work things out. This time, however, the cost to mortgage companies will likely be much higher because more individual verification is needed. This simply isn’t realistic.
The other option is to have the government pony up even more cash to facilitate the process, with the intent of simply shrinking the potential pool of applicants. And of course we will still have the legal and ethical minefield to negotiate as we work to rescue people from their own really bad financial decisions.
If this sounds like a hopeless situation, you know what? It is! And it is about time we have an honest and open discussion that acknowledges the hopelessness and stops using expensive knee-jerk policies in place of rational approaches. As a nation, we need to allow this process to take place naturally.
Do we need to worry about empty homes and depressed neighborhoods? Sure. But this process is much easier on the back end than the front. How about a national tax break for buying not just any home, but only a foreclosed property? How about generating a new group of potential buyers by simply not allowing current defaults to be recorded on people’s credit reports? How about streamlining the foreclosure process, making it quicker and easier for banks to clear properties and find a new buyers, thus reducing their losses?
And most important, we need to think ahead to the changes that need to be made so that we never end up with such a mess again.
Christopher Thornberg is a founding partner with Beacon Economics.
Government inaction would only prolong the painCounterpoint: Richard K. Green
I disagree with you on a number of points, Chris.
First, we do have precedent for what is happening now: the Great Depression. While data from that time aren’t as good as we would like, we do know that during the early 1930s, home prices fell at a rate similar to today and unemployment was considerably higher. Housing construction declined by 90% from peak to trough (if January’s construction number is representative for the year to come, we are at about an 80% peak-to-trough decline now). Despite this, the federal government at the time developed a mortgage modification program that worked rather well, about which I will say more soon.
Second, I continue to think some of the older models of mortgage default are informative. University of Michigan economist Robert Van Order and National University of Singapore economist Yongheng Deng (among others) calibrated sophisticated models of default that looked at markets (such as Texas in the 1980s and California in the early 1990s) that went through substantial price declines. Although I agree that the new world in which we live means we should be modest about how much we actually know, it doesn’t mean we should ignore the work that has been done before. The idea that families will not default if they have an equity stake in their house remains compelling to me.
Third, for the government to largely stand back and let nature take its course is, in my view, a really bad idea. Prices have fallen enough in many places that the cash-flow cost of owning now looks very favorable relative to renting -- at least by historical standards. Yet existing and new home sales in January were abysmal. Why? People lack confidence in the future. The Reuters-University of Michigan consumer confidence index is near a 28-year low. Even people who once considered themselves to be recession-proof fear they will be laid off. Under such circumstances, I am not sure we can expect people to run and buy homes whose occupants are in default.
I have long been an admirer of John Maynard Keynes, who talked about the importance of animal spirits to economic health. I do not see Americans’ animal spirits recovering until house prices stop dropping. Prices will not stop declining until inventories stop rising. While home builders are doing their part (they have stopped building), allowing many more foreclosures to occur will not help this process.
During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt White House rolled out the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages and the Home Owners’ Loan Corp. to buy defaulted mortgages. The HOLC bought the mortgages from lenders at prices below the value of the houses that were collateralizing the mortgages. It then modified payments, changing interest-only mortgages with balloon payments into 20-year self-amortizing mortgages. The HOLC worked: It bought mortgages from only 1933 to 1936, but it bought a large number during these years. It put itself out of business when the last mortgage it bought was retired in 1951. The program reduced the default rate on these mortgages by 90%. Because the government could borrow so cheaply, the HOLC actually turned a small profit for taxpayers.
To me, the HOLC (perhaps modified to include a claw-back provision) is the model for going forward.
Richard K. Green is director of the Lusk Center for Real Estate at USC, where he is also a professor in the School of Policy, Planning and Development and the Marshall School of Business.
|
0cc95f4466ac3224bf470de50ccc8ba6 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-greene11-2008jun11-story.html | The two Henry T. Nicholases | The two Henry T. Nicholases
Last week began and ended on high notes, sort of, for the billionaire Orange County crusader behind some of California’s most recent tough-on-crime ballot measures. On June 2, an anti-gang proposition that he is backing with $1 million from his personal fortune qualified as the sixth state measure (pdf) on the Nov. 4 ballot. That was joined on Friday by number nine, the centerpiece of his years-long public safety campaign -- a proposed victims’ rights initiative (pdf) named for his murdered sister.
The days in between were, well, less triumphant. Indictments were unsealed Thursday by a federal grand jury in Santa Ana, accusing the tough-on-crime benefactor -- Broadcom Corp. co-founder and former chief executive Henry T. Nicholas III -- of securities fraud and multiple drug crimes.
But that sounds so staid. In fact, the 18 pages (pdf) of the more colorful of the two indictments describe a drug-fueled, power-crazed rock star of the tech world who stocked a secret cavern under one of his homes with prostitutes and spiked the drinks of clients and employees with ecstasy. Valium and vicoprofen allegedly gushed into his lairs after cohorts fraudulently obtained prescriptions from a new Oz of narcotics, the pharmacy at the Pavilions grocery store in Newport Coast, just south of UC Irvine (which is enjoying a $40 million Nicholas donation). There were, it is claimed, cocaine and methamphetamine, private “escorts,” death threats, cover-ups and payoffs. News stories have zeroed in on what would be the money shot, if the indictment were turned into an HBO movie: a private jet so thick with his (and his friends’) marijuana smoke that the pilot had to put on an oxygen mask. Nicholas comes off as the Elvis of semiconductors, but more unhinged than the King ever was. The Phil Spector of microprocessors, but without the self-control.
The drier 65-page securities indictment (pdf) alleges backdating of stock options without properly reporting the transactions to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nicholas, currently out on $3.4 million bail, is due to appear for arraignment Monday in Santa Ana.
Meanwhile, lawyers and reporters are poring over the previously reported details of two lawsuits and a (sealed) divorce proceeding that add to the image of self-indulgent dot-com-era excess. Ironies jump off the pages of legal complaints and campaign donation reports. There is Nicholas’ support, for example, of the Orange County Sheriff’s “Drug Use is Life Abuse” program. Or the fact that, according to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, he checked himself out of the Betty Ford Center late last month in order to hang out at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana -- to avoid the “perp walk” past TV cameras. Or the shadowy YouTube video that appears to show Nicholas using drugs, according to prosecutors.
Might any of this stuff pose a campaign problem for his two latest anti-crime measures?
Short answer: Duh. As in, yes. Nicholas released a statement Monday through the new committee that from now on will be running the campaign, saying he is giving up an active role in the drive to pass the “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law.”
The news release from Mitch Zak, partner with Randle Communications and lead strategist for the campaign, shows why top communications experts get paid the big bucks: “During the last week,” it said, “legal issues arose affecting one of the initiative’s major supporters, Dr. Henry Nicholas.... Dr. Nicholas has proactively acted to help the campaign move forward without distraction.”
Legal issues indeed.
Much has been written in business pages and on tech-world blogs about Nicholas as the arrogant business and engineering genius who joined with his professor, Henry Samueli, to build Broadcom, then gave it all up in 2003 to try to save his marriage and dote on his kids. There has been political coverage, as well, of the mastermind and pocketbook behind Republican-sponsored laws that stand no chance in the Democratic-controlled Capitol but are routinely embraced by California voters.
But there has been very little cross-referencing, leaving a bifurcated picture of the man. As the criminal matters work their way through the courts there will doubtless be much more in the news about the Broadcom bad boy Henry T. Nicholas; here is an abbreviated sketch of the direct democracy Henry T. Nicholas.
He is the son of an alcoholic lawyer, according to Times stories. His mother divorced his father and married journalist-turned-screenwriter Robert Leach; Henry and his sister Marsalee grew up with their mother and stepfather in 1960s Malibu. He studied engineering at UCLA.
Marsy was a senior at UC Santa Barbara when her ex-boyfriend, Kerry M. Conley, shot her to death. Conley was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 17 years to life in prison.
Leach, the slain woman’s stepfather, co-founded Justice for Homicide Victims in 1984, two years after California voters adopted Proposition 8, the Victims’ Bill of Rights. He remained president of the group for most of its existence until his death March 30. His widow (and Henry T. Nicholas’ mother), Marcella Leach, remains the group’s executive director.
Nicholas became suddenly rich and famous in 1998, when Broadcom went public and he and more than 200 of his employees became instant millionaires.
In 2000, he opened his wallet for Proposition 21, one of 20 measures on the March ballot, which increased punishment for gang-related felonies, carjacking, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings. It also authorized wiretaps for certain gang activities. California voters passed it overwhelmingly.
It was the latest in a string of tough-on-crime initiatives passed by voters who believed that the state’s justice system coddled criminals. The pendulum appeared to be swinging back by 2004, when Proposition 66 -- a measure to soften the decade-old three strikes law -- consistently polled ahead prior to the November election. But Nicholas pumped $3.5 million into the no-on-66 campaign in the final weeks before the election and helped defeat the measure.
In 2006, he donated to the campaign for Proposition 83, California’s version of Jessica’s Law. Key provisions include mandatory life sentences for many forcible sex acts on children, eliminating good-time and work-time credit for sex offenders, and requiring lifetime electronic monitoring of convicted sex-offense felons.
In speaking to The Times’ editorial board in favor of Proposition 83, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) said he understood the frustration many Californians felt at facing so many ballot measures election after election. But he said it paled in comparison with the frustration they feel at Democrats in the Legislature, who will not allow Republican anti-crime legislation to even get a hearing in Sacramento. He may have been right; voters passed Proposition 83 overwhelmingly.
This November’s ballot brings two Nicholas measures: The Safe Neighborhoods Act, an anti-gang initiative sponsored by Runner, appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for crime-fighting programs, softening rules against hearsay and establishing a host of programs to deter crime and punish criminals; and Marsy’s Law, also known as the Victims’ Rights Act of 2008, to greatly restrict an inmate’s access to parole and to raise to constitutional levels many provisions adopted into law by voters 24 years ago.
Nicholas gave $1 million to the anti-gang measure, and, so far, $4.8 million to the initiative named for his sister.
That latter measure has obvious personal resonance with the billionaire, and not just because of his sister’s death. His mother has spoken of seeing Conley, the killer, in the grocery store, free on bail, shortly after Marsy Nicholas’ funeral. (Conley died in prison last year.)
Along the way, Nicholas donated $1,000 to George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign, $1.5 million to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his political committees, and $11,200 to former Gov. Jerry Brown’s successful 2006 campaign for attorney general. That latter donation seems out of place, but in fact Nicholas worked closely with Brown, then mayor of Oakland, to defeat Proposition 66.
So what becomes of the two most recent measures without the considerable financial support of Henry T. Nicholas? And how badly will Nicholas’ own criminal proceedings hurt the effort? And, just as an ironic twist, how will Nicholas’ alleged drug problems affect a campaign from the other side of the ballot-measure spectrum -- an initiative to end prison time for drug offenders? It wouldn’t directly help Nicholas, even if it passed, because he is charged with federal crimes in federal court. But it could make the next several months more interesting.
Runner has released a statement saying he intends to move full-speed ahead on the anti-gang measure. Assemblyman Todd Spitzer (R-Irvine), with whom Nicholas has worked to create and fund a crime victims’ memorial at the Capitol, has said the same about Marsy’s law.
California voters are a quirky bunch and hard to predict. They could sympathize with Nicholas as a suspected drug offender and go to the polls to pass the sentencing reform. Or they could sympathize with Nicholas as a crime victim’s brother and go to the polls and pass his two measures to toughen the lot of convicted criminals. Or all of the above. Or they could finally tire of legislating by initiative.
But don’t count on it.
Robert Greene is a member of The Times’ editorial board.
Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
653d1f7b7500dcc0efb4e78d8b1b76cd | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-greene23apr23-story.html | Big trouble in Little Hoover | Big trouble in Little Hoover
Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
Some governmental chores are so sacred they can be entrusted only to people or institutions of intellectual rigor and unquestioned integrity. Or at least with the veneer of rigor and integrity. It’s comforting to believe there is someone, somewhere, so completely beyond reproach that the very notion that experience or point of view could affect their judgment is unthinkable.
Political figures don’t usually fall into this category. They belong to parties, and thus are partisan, and thus have judgment clouded by a certain adversarial bent. Americans elect the best person they can think of to be their president but don’t generally consider their choice to be the paragon of clear-thinking moral fiber. Clear-thinking, maybe, or moral, but seldom both. President Bush, for example. Elected president, twicewell, let’s leave it at elected presidentbut probably not the first choice for voters searching for someone to redraw disrrict lines, say, or count ballots. President Clinton (Bill Clinton, to clarify)? Smart, yes. Above reproach? The whole being impeached thing comes into play.
The last president, perhaps, to be considered of sufficient intelligence and uprightness to handle a task as important as drawing legislative and congressional boundarieswith no slight intended to Abraham Lincoln, who was a great leader but was hated so much by nearly half his states that they tried to leave townwas George Washington. He could not, apparently, tell a lie, even if it meant getting spanked for chopping down his father’s cherry tree, something he surely did only with good cause. He was the father of his country. Although there may have been some kind of problem about slaves.
The only people capable of inspiring enough confidence to make decisions about politics are those with the least possible connection to the political world. Do you trust the Federal Election Commission? Of course not. It deals with elections. How about the California Fair Political Practices Commission? That’s iffy. It’s got “political” right there in the title. But it’s also got “fair.” So maybe it’s a push. One proposal for reforming the way California draws its political districts is to hand the task to the FPPC or, even better, to good, real, honest people selected by the FPPC.
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to reform districting he went with the tried and true: judges. They wear black robes, for heaven’s sake. Everything they do is about fairness and justice. But since any one of them could end up hearing an election case, the governor went a step further: retired judges. Not only without motivation to cheat, but without motivation to care. Some Democrats complained when it came to their attention that most retired judges in California are old, white male Republicans. But they’re judges, Schwarzenegger’s people insisted. It still didn’t wash. Which may be a good thing, in the eyes of those of us who spent many years reporting on courts and judges. Judges, it turns out, look like a special breed of even-handed superhuman intellectual giants only from a considerable distance.
So we are back to institutions. How about a grand jury? Good, but go one better. How about the Little Hoover Commission?
You’ve heard of it, although you’re not quite sure where. You have no idea who is on it, and no idea what they do. But you kind of think they maybe once had something to do with ending corruption. They’re perfect.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez has been grappling with pressure from Republicans, from Schwarzenegger and from good government groups... Wait. Good government groups. They sound good, too, in case Little Hoover doesn’t work out. But anyway. Nuñez has been fighting pressure from many quarters to relinquish the political parties’ lock on district boundary-drawing. Last week he offered to give the job to the Little Hoover Commissionwhich, to end your suspense, is one of those storied citizen commissions that is absolutely beyond reproach, as long as you don’t look too closely. It sounds like it may have been established in the 1930s by J. Edgar Hoover and has been quietly fighting corruption ever since. It’s the Untouchable commission. But why “Little”? Maybe, after all, it’s named for one of the Our Gang kids. Shouldn’t redistricting be a job for the Big Hoover commission?
The panel, it turns out, is named after something that’s named after the Commission on Organization on the Executive Branch of the Government, a panel set up in 1947 by Harry Truman and chaired by former President Herbert Hoover (who was not, apparently, known around the Capitol as “Big Hoover”). The commission’s task was to recommend restructuring of federal agencies and cabinet departments. A few years later, Congress established a second Hoover commission, known as the Second Hoover Commission.
A few years after that, California set up a similar group and with bashful deference called it the Little Hoover Commission. Unlike its seniors, it has been around nonstop since 1962, overseeing state government functions and producing lots and lots of reports. Five members are appointed by the governor, two by Assembly Speaker Nuñezhey, what a coincidenceand two by the Senate Rules Committee. Plus two sitting state senators and two sitting Assembly members appointed bybut you’ve already guessed.
They’re a fine bunch of people. Really. And the fact that they are politicians or political appointees doesn’t make them a more corrupt or untrustworthy class of person than anyone else. But the goal is to sever the link between parties and elected officials, on the one hand, and the people who make decisions about drawing the lines on the other. George Washington is gone, as are Lincoln, Hoover and Truman, and no person or institution is inherently so laden with integrity that they become the easy and obvious choice to do the (frankly boring) job. The line-drawers have to be independent, structurally as well as institutionally.
Some reformers want a citizens group, drafted by lot, selected by county registrars, to be the redistricting panel, and while that idea isn’t perfect, it at least removes the partisan elected officials from the process. The Little Hoover idea is an interesting addition to the mix, but no more so than, say, the FPPC or the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. Hey, come to think of it ...
Robert Greene is a member of The Times’ editorial board.
|
b54e5c47c566623b6a1602349c350060 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-healey18feb18-story.html | File sharing or stealing? | File sharing or stealing?
A few days ago I came across an Op-Ed submission that called for file sharing to be decriminalized. The editors here decided not to run it, but it intrigued me for a couple of reasons. First, the author, Karl Sigfrid, is a member of the Swedish Parliament from the Moderate party a pro-business party that’s akin to this country’s Libertarians (except in Sweden they’re more than just a fringe group). Second, although he covered much of the same ground earlier this year in a Swedish paper, Sigfrid’s new piece added another provocative contention: that unauthorized downloading isn’t actually theft. Here’s an excerpt:
In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, the economist and Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek explains the difference between conventional property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is limited by nature, the supply of an immaterial good [is] unlimited, unless the government limits the supply by law . A later Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a level below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of free speech.
In essence, Sigfrid is saying that something in unlimited supply can’t be stolen. His position is a variation on a theme advanced by Mike Masnick of Techdirt.com, among others: that the entertainment industry’s aggressive copyright-enforcement efforts spring from an outdated, analog-era notion of scarcity. Under this view, copyright holders are helped, not harmed, by file sharing and other online distribution pipelines; they just haven’t adapted their business models to take advantage of the new opportunities. Supporters of this view include musicians, authors and filmmakers who say that that file sharing helped bring the exposure they needed to sell their works.
These aren’t just academic arguments. They’re ammunition in a battle that’s raging online to shape the way the public thinks about copyrights. The first salvo was fired by the original Napster, which defined itself as a file-sharing network. That won the semantic high ground by defining unauthorized downloading as “sharing,” not “copying” or “duplicating.” The implication was that users of these networks were merely being generous with something they possessed, not usurping the rights of copyright holders.
Record labels, music publishers and movie studios contend that copyrights are indeed property, entitled to the same protection as a home or a car. To counter the notion of “sharing,” they’ve advanced an equal powerful metaphor: downloading as theft. “When you go online and download songs without permission, you are stealing,” the Recording Industry Assn. of America says on its website. “Piracy is theft, and pirates are thieves, plain and simple. Downloading a movie off of the Internet is the same as taking a DVD off a store shelf without paying for it,” adds the Motion Picture Assn. of America. The imagery has been echoed by the news media, lawmakers and college administrators. It’s even found its way into the online term-paper site FratFiles.com, which offers a model essay, “Illegal downloading ‘is’ stealing” (yes, there are shortcuts even for ethics assignments).
Nice image, but it’s not a perfect fit. As Sigfrid noted, there’s a fundamental difference between intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trademarks) and real property (houses, cars, plasma TVs): The latter is tangible and limited in supply, the former is not. “Copyright infringement is not ‘theft’ in the same way that taking a CD from a store is theft,” said Mark Lemley, a copyright expert at Stanford University Law School. “If I take your physical property, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy your song, I have it, but so do you.”
Legal scholars aren’t the only ones making that point. You’ll see it again and again in discussions online about the propriety, morality and economic impact of file sharing. To Lemley, that suggests the entertainment industry’s choice of metaphors has backfired. “Let me be clear: copyright infringement is wrong, and should be punished,” he wrote in a recent e-mail. “But simplistic statements that infringement is ‘just like’ stealing a CD, or using a room in my house, are wrong. They are also counterproductive, because people instinctively know they are wrong, and so they are likely to ignore histrionics of this sort.”
So what’s the right metaphor? Unauthorized downloading may not be larceny, but it still seems to fit under the broad notion of theft. Even though the copies cost nothing to produce, the data in them has value. Downloaders acquire that value without paying for it. Some say they’re not causing any real losses because they buy new copies of the downloaded files they like. But that rationalization wasn’t persuasive to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who flatly declared in his concurring opinion in MGM vs. Grokster, “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.”
The downloading-isn’t-stealing faction makes much of the fact that infringements don’t deprive copyright owners of their works. But that deprivation is not an essential element in every kind of theft. If you splice into your neighbor’s cable wire and get 150 channels for free, you’re not diminishing the available supply of cable TV or depriving anyone else in the neighborhood of it. But you’re still acquiring something of value without paying for it, and you’re doing it without the seller’s permission. That’s calledtheft of service.
Don’t expect Hollywood to start likening illegal downloading to stealing cable, though, no matter how well the shoe fits. Cable pirates are heroes in some quarters, not pariahs, and the cable operators’ image problems rival those of the RIAA and the MPAA.
More important, copyright owners want the public to view unauthorized downloading as shoplifting because they want intellectual property to be as respected by society just as much as real property is. But there’s more at issue here than just the propriety of file sharing. The imagery associated with infringement also affects debates over other aspects of copyrights, such as how long they should last and who should be responsible for stopping piracy. Likening them to real property tilts the debate by making copyrights seem immutable, when in fact they have a specific social goal: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” as the Constitution states in Article I. Achieving that goal means balancing the interests of content creators against the public’s, which is a much more complicated task than erecting a legal barrier to five-fingered discounts.
Jon Healey is a Times editorial writer and author of the Bit Player blog. Tell us what you think at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
f2c88398f1b3c11145e0c2092db3f07c | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-healey25jun25-story.html | Sirius, XM and American values | Sirius, XM and American values
Worried about the proposed merger between the XM and Sirius satellite radio services? So are more than 70 members of Congress, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and the American Antitrust Institute, among other groups.
On the other hand, the New York State Federation of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce thinks it’s a great idea. “We firmly believe that alternative news sources found in satellite radio have played a role in fueling this economic growth and we strongly urge the merger’s approval,” the group’s president, Alfred Placares, said in a press release earlier this month.
So do three other Latino organizationsthe Hispanic Federation, the Latino Coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Also voicing support are the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the 2nd Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (as well as the NAACP, although its comments have yet to be posted). Ditto a trio of women’s groups: Women Involved in Farm Economics, Women Impacting Public Policy and the National Council of Women’s Organizations. From the heartland, the League of Rural Voters votes “aye” on the merger of the satellite radio giants. So do two conservative Christian groups, American Values and FamilyNet. Oh and yes, don’t forget the liberal National Consumers League and the conservative National Taxpayers Union.
Who knew there was such a variety of stakeholders among the 14 million subscribers in Sirius and XM’s combined user base?
While the names of the groups change from issue to issue, the routine in Washington has been pretty much the same for decades. Whenever policymakers are poised to act on an important and controversial issue, such as a big merger or new regulation, out of the woodwork come a swarm of advocacy groups representing a rainbow array of ethnic groups, regional interests and other constituencies.
Some of them weigh in on their own accord. For example, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation routinely take positions on mergers involving telecommunications services (and, typically, oppose them). But other groups step up to the microphone at the behest of parties most affected by the government’s action. It’s become part of the game: If you want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to bless your merger, as XM and Sirius do, you line up as many grass-roots allies as you can. Your opponents do too.
The routine makes perfect sense to former FCC Chairman Dick Wiley, a Washington lobbyist whose clients include Sirius. When he was on the commission in the 1970s, he said, the FCC routinely heard from the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other African American representatives on media issues. “The FCC is naturally going to be interested in what the NAACP thinks about this ... or the Hispanic caucus. That’s part of the whole equation,” Wiley said. And lining up support from those groups “is part of a very legitimate process that goes on to try to persuade five (FCC) commissioners whose obligation is to determine what is the broader public interest.”
Given the stakes involved, it’s not surprising that the process has been abused. Critics coined a term"AstroTurf"to describe supposedly grass-roots groups that turn out to be fronts ginned up by proponents or opponents of a merger, regulation or bill. Another tactic favored by large corporations is to buy goodwill among community groups through charitable donations, then encourage those groups to support the corporations’ agendas in Washington. There’s also the practice of pouring money into supposedly independent research groups, then trotting out studies that, amazingly enough, support their benefactors’ point of view.
It would be a mistake, though, to see advocacy groups as puppets that take positions only on command. There’s a natural symbiosis between these groups and their corporate allies. The groups’ raison d'être is to raise their constituents’ profile and make sure their concerns are heard. Thus, every controversial rulemaking or legislative battle is an opportunity to justify their existence and position themselves as representatives of a slice of the citizenry that shouldn’t be ignored.
Take, for example, Women Impacting Public Policy, a Washington-based group that represents female business owners. “We’ve carved out a niche and space in the telecom area because there is probably no set of issues that affect us more broadly” than the communications and media issues regulated by the FCC, said Barbara Kasoff, the group’s president. “That affects us in terms of our programming, being able to advertise, being able to market, being able to be part of this space.” The group occasionally gets involved on issues at the request of its corporate partners, which include AT&T and Verizon. But it jumped into the fray over the XM-Sirius merger on its own initiative. “We kind of watch what’s happening through the FCC,” Kasoff said. “We felt it’s very critical the commissioners on the FCC understand the perspective of small business owners. And to that end, we want to make sure that we are visible and we provide that perspective.”
The grass-roots groups and individual comments (more than 2,500 of which have been filed with the FCC) have largely repeated the themes advanced by XM and Sirius or their primary opponents, the National Association of Broadcasters. These include the impact on prices, programming diversity and consumer choice. They’ve also helped XM and Sirius advance an argument that the publicly traded services can’t make themselves: that the two companies are too weak to survive as independent entities.
That’s one of the points made by the Minneapolis-based League of Rural Voters, which joined the debate at the behest of XM and Sirius. It released a report last week that argued the merger was fundamentally different from the proposed merger of satellite TV providers DirecTV and EchoStar, which the FCC unanimously rejected in 2002. Niel Ritchie, the league’s executive director, admitted that “the XM guys did this particular study,” but he said he agreed with its conclusions and was happy to put it out under the league’s banner. Satellite radio is valuable to rural areas because they’re frequently underserved by over-the-air broadcasters, Ritchie said, and the merger would be a good thing because it would turn “what we perceive to be two weak companies into a strong company.” He added that rural concerns are too often overlooked by policymakers. “For us, having an opportunity to get involved in regulatory issues that have an impact on our constituency ... is one we take every chance we get.”
Jon Healey is a Times editorial writer; he runs the BitPlayer blog .
Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
92949ac5100e8e65c043fde43277efae | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-healey6aug06-story.html | Hacking the iPhone | Hacking the iPhone
For the past few weeks, exceptionally geeky gadget lovers have been celebrating a series of breakthroughs in the pursuit of one of their Holy Grails: opening the Apple iPhone to software applications not written or approved by Apple. Their dedication and success is a harbinger of things to come for the wireless industry, which is headed, kicking and screaming, into a long and fitful transition from central control to user liberation. That transition is being fueled by devices such as the iPhone, and by federal regulators, who imposed unprecedented requirements for openness last week on a new generation of wireless services.
The iPhone -- called the Jesus Phone by some, in light of its worshipful following -- shares many of the same handicaps that bedevil other U.S. cellular devices. It can be used on only one mobile network (AT&T’s, or more specifically AT&T’s second-tier data network). And while users can put song files, pictures and TV shows onto their iPhones, they can’t install software (or ringtones, oddly enough -- at least not yet). That means no Skype, for example, or any other service that requires specially installed software.
But Apple did carve out a doggy-door into the iPhone. It invited developers to create web-based applications and services that the iPhone could run in its browser. Developers responded with an array of offerings, including online news readers, instant-messaging programs and even voice-over-IP services. The main drawback is that the programs and services work only while the iPhone is connected to a WiFi access point or AT&T’s poky data network.
That’s much more freedom to develop and customize than other phones allow, mainly because their Web browsers don’t measure up to Apple’s Safari. Yet it still wasn’t enough for some critics, who complained that even Safari offered too limited a set of software-writing tools. Potential innovators would be handcuffed without being able to tap the phone’s full computing power, the argument went.
That’s why a loosely organized group of code-writers started hacking their way into the heart of the iPhone, trying to write applications that could be installed and operated on the phone the same way programs can be loaded onto a Mac. So far, they’ve developed several basic applications, starting with one that displayed a two-word message on the iPhone screen: “Hello world.” (If that sounds pointless, bear in mind where the phrase has been used before.) Among the current crop of iPhone-able applications is an an open-source program to feed content onto the Web.
These hacks require more technical know-how than the vast majority of mobile-phone customers have. But if someone develops an application that the masses might find compelling, a version will surely follow that’s simple enough for the masses to use. And as the number of iPhone users grows -- Apple’s target is 10 million by the end of 2008 -- so, too, will the incentive for developers to try to fashion a killer app.
This pattern is familiar to anyone who watched the rise and fall of America Online. In the early days of ISPs, the alien complexity of computers and the ‘Net led millions of users to crave the simplicity that AOL offered inside its “walled garden,” or private network. But while AOL was keeping a tight lid on what was available on its network, entrepreneurs had complete freedom to develop sites and services on the public Internet. Eventually, AOL’s users found more to like on the unrestricted Web than they could within the safety and comfort of AOL’s walled garden.
Wireless network operators have revived the walled-garden model in an effort to wring more cash out of their customers. Verizon Wireless is probably the most extreme example; it disables features on its phones, blocks numerous third-party services and even tries to collect extra fees for transferring pictures from a cellphone to a PC. This approach might be sustainable as long as mobile phones are primarily phones, but the iPhone represents something different: an all-purpose device for staying connected. It’s a mobile Internet terminal as much as it is a cellphone, and Internet users don’t like to be fenced in by their ISPs.
The Federal Communications Commission acknowledged as much last week when it set the rules for auctioning a portion of the airwaves once reserved for UHF TV signals, technically known as the 700 MHz band. While police and firefighters will get first crack at a portion of those frequencies, most of the band is expected to be used to offer wireless high-speed Internet access service. The FCC had imposed few rules on wireless operators in the past, under the theory that competition in the market would yield better results than regulation. But in a contentious shift, the commission placed a new burden on a slice of the 700 MHz band frequencies large enough for a new national broadband network: it required the winning bidder(s) to open the network to compatible devices and applications from any source.
The goal, as stated by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, is to spur innovation. Removing the network operator’s ability to bless or reject devices could throw the market open to anyone with a novel idea or business model. The same may be true for application developers, such as Skype and Google, who have been pressing the FCC for this kind of open access (in Skype’s case, not just in the 700 MHz band, but for mobile phone networks as well). At a congressional hearing last month, entrepreneur Jason Devitt laid out several examples of services currently missing from mobile phone networks that independent developers might be more capable or motivated to offer in an open-network environment, such as more location-based services.
Skeptics say that Martin undermined his own efforts by not imposing rules that would prevent the current mobile phone operators, such as Verizon and AT&T, from gobbling up the new licenses. Those companies have a huge incentive to outbid rivals who might compete with their lucrative high-speed Internet services, and they can price and package their services in the 700 MHz band in ways that render the new requirements meaningless (for starters, by subsidizing their own devices so heavily that no independent manufacturer could compete).
Still, as the iPhone and its hacks illustrate, the pressure for openness on the wireless networks is building, and moving to higher data speeds will only intensify it. Look at the meteoric rise of the original Napster, the iTunes Music Store and YouTube. A good idea, with or without the support of the affected industry, can rapidly build an audience of millions, and change paradigms. The new requirements on part of the 700 MHz band should make it easier for device-makers and applications developers to let the market judge the value of their ideas. And if they’re really good, network operators would be better off letting these innovations increase the demand for their airwaves, rather than trying in vain to wall them off.
Jon Healey is a member of The Times’ editorial board and author of the BitPlayer blog. Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
dd5996b592481690015802723b82e91f | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-hunt24-2008sep24-story.html | Proposition 7: Clean energy for California | Proposition 7: Clean energy for California
The Times’ editorial board has long touted, much to my pleasure, the urgent need to transition to a renewable energy future. Although I often agree with The Times on energy issues, I strongly disagree with the editorial board’s position on Proposition 7, the Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008. The Times recommends a no vote on this potentially ground-breaking measure. My organization has endorsed Proposition 7. We have received no compensation from the campaign, nor will we accept any compensation in the future. We are independent advocates.
The Times and other opponents argue that Proposition 7 would stifle small-scale renewable energy companies -- solar in particular -- because it would forbid projects that generate less than 30 megawatts of power from inclusion in the state’s law that requires all investor-owned utilities to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2010. This law, the Renewables Portfolio Standard, would be amended by Proposition 7. This argument rests, however, on a very poor analysis that ignores standard rules of legal interpretation.
Moreover, the Proposition 7 campaign is on record in court documents stating that the initiative’s authors and supporters have no intent to change current law on energy producers that generate less than 30 megawatts. These statements will carry a lot of weight with agencies and courts in interpreting Proposition 7, the same way legislative history carries a lot of weight for any other law’s implementation.
Even if Proposition 7 did exclude projects under 30 megawatts from the state’s existing laws on renewable energy, it would have no negative impact on the many current state and federal programs that support small renewables. For example, the California Solar Initiative will provide about $3 billion in rebates for small solar projects over the next nine years. There are also federal tax credits. None of these programs would be affected negatively by Proposition 7. In fact, they would benefit because larger renewable projects would help bring technology costs down such that small renewable projects may be cheaper. The anti-Proposition 7 side’s cries that the initiative would devastate small renewable energy companies is hyperbole of the worst sort.
The Times also touts as a better alternative to Proposition 7 the possibility that the Legislature will pass a bill that would require the state to get 33% of its power from renewable energy by 2020. Unfortunately, the latest bill that attempted this change (SB 411) died a few weeks ago in the Legislature. Lawmakers are discussing a new bill for next year, but chances are slim that it would pass in any form that would do much good.
Why my pessimism? The Legislature has a habit of turning good bills into bad ones. SB 411 would have required investor-owned utilities to achieve 33% renewables by 2020, but it also provided a number of off-ramps for noncompliance. Most crucially, it did not include any new tools to achieve the 33% benchmark.
The Times also has a problem with Proposition 7’s provision that the law could only be changed by a two-thirds vote in the Legislature or by another ballot measure. Supporters feel that Proposition 7 is good policy, and as such, there ought to be a high hurdle to change the law. If real problems do crop up in implementing Proposition 7, a two-thirds vote in the Legislature shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve.
Proposition 7 is not perfect, but it is quite good on balance. It would provide substantial new tools for achieving much higher levels of renewable energy use. Proposition 7 would also increase penalties on utilities for noncompliance, in almost all scenarios, by eliminating the cap on fines that the state’s Public Utilities Commission can impose.
The coalition opposing Proposition 7 is impressive; unfortunately, many of its members have not delved into the initiative in sufficient detail. Several of the anti-Proposition 7 groups do not have the necessary background in state energy policy to understand the changes proposed by the measure. Under close scrutiny, almost all of the objections raised by opponents melt away.
Tam Hunt is the energy program director and attorney for the Santa Barbara-based Community Environmental Council. He is also a lecturer on renewable energy law and policy at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UC Santa Barbara.
|
64ef193616f8e61d764dedca5a7ce4ee | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-jacobs8-2008dec08-story.html | Why we’re mad at the Mormon church | Why we’re mad at the Mormon church
Leading up to the Nov. 4 vote, the Courage Campaign Issues Committee bought time on cable television to air an advertisement against Proposition 8 entitled “Home Invasion.” The hard-hitting ad depicted two arrogant Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, stripping them of their wedding rings and shredding their marriage license.
The dramatic visuals were designed to call attention to two issues: Proposition 8 sought to take away the legal rights of same-sex couples all across California, and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had contributed an enormous amount of money and manpower to the campaign.
Since the election, this ad has drawn the ire of religious groups and pundits across the country, including Times Op-Ed columnist Jonah Goldberg (“An ugly attack on Mormons,” Dec. 3). But amid the uproar over the ad, there was very little discussion about something very important: the truth.
And the truth is very simple: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints campaigned vigorously to strip rights from gays and lesbians. They contributed a staggering amount of money to pass Proposition 8 -- a figure estimated to be at least $20 million (and potentially much higher) to fund a fear-mongering, truth-distorting campaign whose only objective was to outlaw same-sex couples from getting a marriage license. Proposition 8 now threatens to invalidate the same-sex marriages already in existence, pending future rulings from the California Supreme Court. There is an old saying: Truth can’t be libel.
Goldberg claims that the ad focused on the Mormons because they were an easier target, one of many faiths that supported Proposition 8. In reality, the Yes on 8 campaign might as well have been a wholly owned subsidiary of the LDS Church. Many estimate that members of the LDS Church gave more than half of the total amount raised by the Yes on 8 campaign. In addition, the LDS Church ran large call centers supporting Proposition 8 and encouraged its members to travel to California to support the campaign. These efforts were only scaled back after California voters started to become more aware of the massive role that the LDS Church was playing in the campaign. They may also be putting the LDS Church into some legal peril as well: It is being investigated by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for failure to report expenses related to these, as well as other, campaign activities on behalf of Proposition 8.
Unfortunately, this failure to take public responsibility for leading the fight against same-sex marriage, as well as the masking of its efforts behind the shroud of an interfaith coalition, is nothing new for the LDS Church.
An LDS Church internal memo from 1997 regarding strategies to oppose same-sex marriage explains that although the LDS Church may be able to put together the funding for a citizen referendum in California, “The public image of the Catholic Church [is] higher than our Church. In other words, if we get into this, they are ones with which to join.” This is exactly the strategy the LDS Church used to mask its involvement in Proposition 8 until the final weeks before the election.
The LDS Church or any other organization has every right to use its power to influence elections to any extent that is legal. What it doesn’t have a right to do is claim persecution when other organizations do nothing but expose the church’s forays into the political arena before a discerning public.
While the backlash against the LDS Church has made some of its members uncomfortable, they have nobody to blame but their leadership who dragged them into this mess. In an effort to repair its public image, the church has said that it wants to begin a “healing process” and has claimed support for equal rights for gays and lesbians, except for using the word “marriage” to describe unions between same-sex partners. The church now has an opportunity to demonstrate that support: Utah state Sen. Scott McCoy has introduced legislation that would provide gays and lesbians in his state with all rights that straight people enjoy except marriage.
If the LDS Church were to support McCoy, it would show that it really does believe in love, compassion and equal rights. If it does not, the church’s supposedly conciliatory stance would simply be one more obfuscation in support of truly bigoted intentions.
Rick Jacobs is the founder and chairman of the Courage Campaign, a progressive online organizing network.
|
8dcddb44d06c740e9deabd49f571cf02 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-leahy12jun12-story.html | The Trouble with Fred and Wilma | The Trouble with Fred and Wilma
The trouble with the $27 million Creation Museum, which replaces the scientific method with word for word Christian Biblical literalist theology, is that it makes all Christians who don’t accept evolution look stupid. In doing so in such a publicly visible way it undermines the credibility of all Christians, especially those who are researching alternatives to Darwinian evolution using the tools of the scientific method. It also gives the growing movement of militant atheism, as exemplified by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, an easy opportunity to misrepresent all Christians as “irrational.” The mainstream media, including the Los Angeles Times in its recent editorial “Yabba-dabba science,” are only too happy to lend assistance to this misrepresentation.
Owned by the “Young Earth Creationist” organization Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum claims that the universe, earth, and man are only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs co-existed with man. The premise worked well for The Flintstones cartoon show, but has zero credibility within the scientific community in general and the Christian scientific community in particular. Most Christians, and almost all Christians who work as scientists are “Theistic Evolutionists.” Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome project, for instance, holds such views, as does Dr. Simon Conway Morris, a leading British paleontologist and professor at Cambridge University.
The Answers in Genesis organization has scrounged up 175 PhDs. from around the world who, apparently in all sincerity, buy into this Biblically based rejection of the scientific method. As Dr. Eugenie Scott, president of the National Center for Science Education and a non-theist, points out, most of these PhDs. have their degrees in areas other than evolutionary biology. “I’m sad to say this of my fellow PhDs., but the mere fact that you have a PhD. doesn’t always mean you know what you’re talking about,” she concludes.
Despite the atheist Sam Harris’ irresponsible and false claim in his recent best selling book, Letter to a Christian Nation, that “half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old”, a 2004 study by UC Santa Barbara Professor of Sociology Otis Dudley Duncan and Indiana State University’s Dr. Claudia Geist concluded that at most 18% of Americans are Biblical literalists in their views on creation and evolution. And yet, even among these Biblical literalists, the anti-scientific methods of the “Young Earth Creationists” are probably embraced by only a minority, with the majority falling into the “Old Earth Creationist” and “Intelligent Design” schools of thought.
My guess is that most Biblical literalists belong to the “Old Earth Creationist” school of thought, characterized by the research of Dr. Hugh Ross’ Los Angeles based Reason to Believe organization. With a PhD. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, Dr. Ross embraces the scientific method, and in fact, is using it to test the “Old Earth” theory, which is part of the scientific mainstream in that it accepts the 4.5 billion years age of the earth assertion.
Ross differs from evolutionists in that he believes that while adaptation within species occurs, species themselves were created fully formed. Not a hypothesis that most of us theistic evolutionists accept, but one that is in fact amenable to scientific testing. His organization is currently testing the biblical account of Adam and Eve as the first two humans by looking at the origins of human DNA structure. Their theory is that modern human DNA began in a localized area from a very small population group. Empirical evidence that supports this theory would also tend to support the Adam and Eve story from Genesis. I’m not holding my breath that the results of the study will confirm the hypothesis, but you certainly cannot fault the methodology of the study as being “unscientific” or “irrational.”
Other anti-evolutionists are part of the “Intelligent Design” school of thought, which argues that the complexity of life is so great that it must have been created by an intelligent entity. Biblical literalists and non-believers alike can be found in this school of thought.
This group delights in pointing out the flaws in the traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory (species have not evolved in the kind of slow linear progression Darwin’s theory would predict, but rather in a “punctuated equilibrium” of long periods of stasis followed by short periods of rapid change). However, to date, no one from the movement has set forth a testable hypothesis that can be subjected to empirical observations and repetitions consistent with the scientific method.
The mainstream media, the Los Angeles Times included, have done a disservice to the public dialogue on this matter by publicizing the smallest and most ridiculous group among Biblical literalists, incorrectly lumping the scientifically based literalists with them, and then setting up a public dialogue between the Flintstones on the one hand and Professor Peabody on the other.
Chris Mathews dropped a “Yes or No” pop-quiz during a Republican Presidential contenders as to their acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Three candidates (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo) answered no to this question, and the mainstream media, the Los Angeles Times included, were quick to portray these men as dogmatic and irrational “Young Earther Creationists”, even though all three could be described more accurately as “Intelligent Design” or “Old Earth Creationist” proponents.
The Los Angeles Times misrepresented their positions as follows:
“Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together”
This is a false characterization of their beliefs, and a false characterization of many Christians who are Biblical literalists. Huckabee, for instance, later elaborated:
“I believe that the creation has a creator. I believe there is a God. And I believe God put this whole creative process in motion. How he did it and the time frame in which he did it, I honestly don’t know.”
The Los Angeles Times “Yabba Dabba Science” editorial is correct in pointing out that “religion and science can coexist.”
The trick here for the Times, and the bulk of the mainstream media, is to give a fair and accurate account of the public dialogue on issues where religion and science intersect. While it plays to the Los Angeles Times editorial board’s sense of intellectual superiority to pit the “caveman and dinosaur” crowd against the learned professors, it is not an intellectually honest way to cover the scientific and political debate surrounding the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The mainstream media needs to make a clear distinction between the anti-scientific methods of “Young Earth Creationists” and the scientifically based approaches of “Old Earth Creationists” and “Intelligent Design” advocates. Most importantly, the dishonest practice of lumping “Old Earth Creationists” and “Intelligent Design” advocates into the same intellectual trash bin as “Young Earth Creationists” should stop immediately.
Michael Patrick Leahy is the author of the book Letter to an Atheist, and managing editor of the new online magazine, Christian Faith and Reason. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and has an MBA from Stanford.
|
4639a01d8027b17db81670630b5af515 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-macdonald27feb27-story.html | Wrong on rape | Wrong on rape
I was appalled this Sunday to see the headline “What campus rape crisis?” pop up on my newsfeed, especially when I realized it came from a major news source. I am grateful to The Times for the opportunity to respond to Heather MacDonald’s rehash of author Katie Roiphe’s discredited attacks on studies of rape on college campuses, although I question why such an outdated and deliberately misleading piece was published in the first place.
To refute MacDonald’s claims, I could dwell on her right-wing think tank credentials and the ideological biases that come with such funding sources. I could cite peer-reviewed academic sources, anecdotal student survivor sources or Department of Justice statistics, [pdf] all of which demonstrate that sexual assault is a common occurrence on college campuses. I could link to dozens of articles from the last month alone detailing students raped by friends, Resident assistants and ex-boyfriends. But MacDonald clearly does not care about such evidence, and my real concern is not with her. Instead, I want to reach out to the survivors, students, parents, administrators and lawmakers who might have read her opinion and been misled by her distortions and circular logic, and I want to discuss what is really happening on college campuses, from the perspective of those who graduated recently or are there now.
MacDonald gives herself away halfway through the article with her reference to what “students in the ‘60s demanded.” Apparently she is still fighting old battles, and her fear of women who drink, have sex and have orgasms is out of touch with the reality of young men and women today. Certainly there are problems with sex on college campuses, but I don’t think the solution is, as MacDonald seems to suggest, a return to the days when “fraternization” was prohibited by college administrations. (Just look at the recent statistics on rapes in the U.S. military and at military academies, which do have strict rules about fraternization.)
Along with MacDonald’s deep distrust of female sexuality, her lack of respect for men [pdf] is evident in her obsession with women’s actions, because the only excuse for focusing on the victim and not the perpetrator would be a belief that men are unable to control their behavior. But is that really a tenable position on which to base school policies or our lives? Most men are not rapists, and I believe that all men are capable of being responsible for their actions. I also believe fewer men would be rapists with better guidance on the definition of consensual sex and a decrease in the kind of victim-blaming in which people like MacDonald engage.
So what are the problems with sex and rape on college campuses? The biggest is many students’ lack of a clear understanding of the difference between the two. Students today are being inundated by two contradictory cultures, neither of them healthy. On the one hand, we have the continual commodification of sex in America. Women’s bodies are everywhere, selling cars, movies and pop stars in increasingly explicit terms, but with little focus on mutuality, emotions, knowledge, conversation or consent. On the other hand, we have abstinence-only education and MacDonald-like calls for chastity, which also focus very little on mutuality, emotions, knowledge, conversation or consent. So when it comes to an in-person sexual interaction between two students with these two cultures to draw on, is it any surprise that some men are picking the elements that justify forcing a woman to have sex or that some women are confused about what happened to them and whose fault it is? In all of America’s high-volume arguing about sex these days, why aren’t more people simply teaching our students to talk to each other, honestly and openly, before having sex?
In 2002, fewer than half of colleges and universities had sexual assault prevention programs, and the programs that did exist could have been as basic as a skit during orientation that half the freshmen slept through. This is an unacceptable failure to put resources into prevention, given the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. And sexual assault is a problem no matter what numbers you use - did MacDonald really mean to imply that rape isn’t a problem if it is only impacting one woman or two women or 10 women a month per campus? Multiply out those numbers, and I’d say that’s a pretty big problem.
The services available to survivors are often not much more extensive. Every week, the organization I work with, Students Active for Ending Rape, hears from students who feel re-victimized by the lack of services or by administrators who did not believe their accounts or blamed them for their assaults.
I work with SAFER because I feel that the voices that need to be heard are those of students, not those of writers bankrolled by conservative think tanks. Students are the ones surviving assault and committing assault, and colleges and universities need to turn their attention to what students want and need in terms of prevention programs, survivor services and disciplinary proceedings. The answers will be different for each campus, as each campus has a different culture and different students. The solution to the rape crisis on campus can only come from active responses to what college students say they need today, not from conservative ideologues 30 years out of college repeating tired stereotypes from their desks at the Manhattan Institute.
Nora Niedzielski-Eichner is a board member of Students Active for Ending Rape and a graduate student at Stanford University.
|
520330812237715d7f39f6d6e7165362 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-manguward-marcotte11-2008sep11-story.html | First lady -- a glorified housewife? | First lady -- a glorified housewife?
Today’s question: At their convention, Republicans ignored Cindy McCain’s impressive business accomplishments and instead focused on her record of philanthropy. Why is a strong woman a good VP candidate but not a good first lady? Previously, Marcotte and Mangu-Ward discussed the media’s focus on gender, whether a socially conservative candidate could ever appeal to feminists and Gloria Steinem’s criticism of Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin’s running for VP, not first ladyPoint: Amanda Marcotte
Sure, there’s a double standard when it comes to how the GOP is selling Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin, highlighting the former’s philanthropy and the latter’s accomplishments as an executive, which are strong for an ordinary person but still remarkably weak for a vice presidential candidate. I suspect the reason the public is supposed to be awed by her is because she’s a woman who pulled it off. To me, it’s obvious that women can be governors and mayors, but from the condescending way the Republican campaign treats her, you’d think she’s impressive just because she can read.
But there’s a double standard for a fair reason: Cindy McCain is not running for office. She’s indicated that she intends to continue to be a small part of John McCain’s life even if he wins, though time will tell if she’s allowed to do this. Palin, on the other hand, is trying to get our votes. She’s not John McCain’s mistress or his third wife in training. She’s his colleague, and it’s appropriate to treat her that way. Sorry, Republicans, that means she’s eligible for criticism.
I’m not entirely sure the campaign that brought Palin on understands the difference between “running mate” and “consort,” though. Republicans ballyhoo her ruthless, Spiro-Agnew-returns type with glee, alluding to vicious animals such as barracudas and pit bulls. But she’s being sheltered as if she were the idealized naive housewife. The campaign’s first photo of her gave the impression that she’d be another lady taking tea in the White House. Then there’s the careful shielding of Palin from media inquiries, as if she’s a delicate flower. We shouldn’t condemn Chris Matthews for describing her campaign as a mix between “a vice president and first lady”; we should ask why the McCain campaign is so sexist as to handle her this way.
Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, she didn’t see a need to soften the edges of her campaign to make it an Extra Downy woman’s effort. Like the feminist she is, Clinton campaigned as if the only legitimate differences between male and female candidates are the clothes they wear and how much prejudice they face (and she came close to winning with such a threatening image). We almost forgot that Clinton’s pathway into Washington politics was her stint as first lady, where she lost a major battle on healthcare and was resigned to playing a traditional role of non-threatening philanthropist for the rest of her husband’s presidency.
Not that this change of roles for Clinton stopped the endless squalling from right-wingers who thought that the only suitable role for a first lady is to be a glorified housewife, with far-flung philanthropy substituting for the more mundane everyday housewife life, such as working church bake sales and PTA meetings. Clinton’s deviations from the first lady-as-housewife model started her on the path to being the national symbol of all right-wing men’s fears of emasculation.
Laura Bush and now Cindy McCain show no sign of bucking the trend of displaying proper subservience to their husbands. They buy into the idea that the first lady’s role is to reassure the nation that the standard of wifehood is still intact. Clinton pushed the envelope and Michelle Obama has room to push it further, though the latter has put her prestigious career on hold to help her husband. The day that we have a first lady in the White House who continues her career instead of spending all her time doing charitable work is the day I’ll believe that the nation has finally accepted that wives can have their own careers and stops treating the majority of married women as if they’re deviations from the norm.
Amanda Marcotte is the executive editor and writer for the blog Pandagon.net. Her first book, “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environment,” is published by Seal Press.
Cindy McCain is Martha Stewart to Sarah Palin’s Rachael Ray Counterpoint: Katherine Mangu-Ward
At first glance, the Republicans’ would-be first lady and VP nominee are the yin and yang of woman. Together they form the very model of a modern working matriarch.
Palin takes care of business. She’s the careerist half. Look! There she is giving a press conference coated in amniotic fluid! She’s back at work three days after giving birth! She’s breast feeding during conference calls! She still has time to style her bangs and put on pearls! She hunts. She fishes. She fishes for money. She’s tenacious, as her speech at the GOP convention made clear. She elicits slavish devotion from a certain type of man, such as Adam Brickley, the blogger who got his 15 minutes by “discovering” Palin; the Atlantic’s resident conservative and early Palin booster Ross Douthat; and Rush Limbaugh.
Cindy McCain just takes care. She keeps house (OK, eight houses). She smiles. She’s a “crier.” People use the word “elegant” a lot when they talk about her. Her fidelity to the 1950s housewife shtick is so intense that she even once managed an addiction to prescription pain killers. Her charity work is perfect first-lady fodder -- cleft palates and land mines a la Princess Diana. She has a master’s degree in special education, for crying out loud.
She keeps her mouth shut. As the Clintons have been so ably demonstrating for more than a decade now, it’s no mean feat to keep from saying something that’s going to cause trouble when your spouse is running for office.
But here’s why Palin and Cindy McCain can both legitimately claim the title of strong, modern woman in their own right: Each borrows liberally from the stereotype of the role the other is supposed to be playing.
Cindy McCain’s feel-good, goody-two-shoes care giving involves MBA-level management skills and the occasional trip in an armored car. She’s the chairwoman of a large corporation. She flies planes and races cars. She asked for and got an ironclad pre-nuptial agreement from John McCain.
Palin sold herself to the people of Wasilla and later Alaska as a folksy hockey mom, which she is. When she talks, she sounds like a church lady; she is a church lady.
Cindy McCain is Martha Stewart to Palin’s Rachael Ray. While they’re baking cakes and smiling for the cameras, it’s easy to forget that both Stewart and Ray run billion-dollar empires.
One part of being a strong woman (having it all, if you will) is choosing who has access to which parts of one’s personality, and when. Both women have managed this feat of personal public relations impressively, each finding her own balance of power, personal fulfillment, pulchritude and pregnancy. To suggest that John McCain is the puppet master of both women gives them far too little credit -- and him far too much.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
|
c99df489d4bb23d4d04c548bc7885936 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-manguward-marcotte12-2008sep12-story.html | Is Palin’s parental prowess fair game? | Is Palin’s parental prowess fair game?
Today’s question: Is a female candidate’s performance as a mother truly off limits during a campaign? Previously, Mangu-Ward and Marcotte discussed the GOP’s downplaying of Cindy McCain’s success as a businesswoman, the media’s focus on gender, whether a socially conservative candidate could ever appeal to feminists and Gloria Steinem’s criticism of Sarah Palin.
Political men tout their parenting prowess. Why not women?Point: Katherine Mangu-Ward
Flash back a couple weeks to Joe Biden’s introduction at the Democratic National Convention. Over violins, we hear, : “No matter where he is or no matter what he’s doing, if one of the children calls, he stops and takes the call. ... He’s a wonderful father, he’s an exceptional grandfather, and that’s really what it’s about for him.” When Biden’s speech ends, an army of small blond Biden kin rushes the stage. In fanciful moments, I sometimes wonder whether politicians are very different from you and me -- a kind of alien race living symbiotically (or, perhaps, parasitically) among us. It’s comforting to hear about their family lives because it reassures us that they are, in fact, genetically human.
Many considered Rudy Giuliani’s falling out with his son yet another indication of his intemperate nature and poor interpersonal skills. The Clintons were rightly praised for trying to protect their awkward daughter from the spotlight. Now the Democrats can’t seem to shut up about how great a dad Biden is.
Yet we’re supposed to feel vaguely skeeved out when we inquire into Sarah Palin’s parenting techniques. How exactly did the talk about the birds and the bees go with Bristol, Sarah? Are you going to hire a nanny to help the would-be Second Dude?
That’s a shame. There’s a certain minimum standard of human decency you can generally ascribe to good parents. And when you’re talking about politicians, male or female, there’s a higher-than-average chance they might not meet the minimally decent threshold. Reports on Palin’s PTA attendance record are important, in their way, as are tales of Biden’s Amtrak addiction. Parenting is a window into the character of the people who hold power over us.
On the other hand, you don’t want a candidate to be too good of a mother or father.
Let’s imagine the vice presidency actually mattered: Would you still find it heartwarming if Biden announced that he was going to keep commuting home on Amtrak every night? What about taking calls from his grandchildren in the middle of a meeting with Iranian diplomats?
There’s something not quite right when male politicians splash their paternal prowess all over the place, but female candidates and those who cover them have to tiptoe around the issue. Maybe we can end on a note of agreement, Amanda. Here’s a real double standard. Send up the feminist bat signal!
It’s been a fun week, Amanda. Thanks for putting up with me. Let’s do this again sometime.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
Palin invites the parental scrutinyCounterpoint: Amanda Marcotte
I do fully agree with you, Katherine, that too much is made out of politicians’ parenting abilities, especially women’s. I do hold out one exception, though -- politicians who support intrusive government action on our home lives should be held to the very standards they’d impose by law on the rest of us. If the words “sanctity of life” or “sanctity of marriage” ever pass between your lips, I consider that an open invitation for the citizenry to file through your underwear drawer and follow you into any airport bathroom to witness any foot-tapping antics.
I find it puzzling that you excoriate Biden for making a fuss over his paternal leanings and let Palin off the hook. If anything, the Republican running mate leaned even more on her family history to sell herself. The McCain campaign has gone beyond saying, “Look at her lovely family!” to implying that the presence of five children somehow counts as a qualification for office in and of itself. I can’t help but think that’s what Carol Fowler, the South Carolina Democratic Party’s chairwoman, was trying to get at when she claimed that Palin’s major qualification was that she hadn’t had an abortion. It was a poorly phrased remark, but the kernel of truth is there. For the rabid right-wing base, the presence of five children offers reassurance that Palin is a good woman who risks child-bearing every time she has sex -- you know, unlike the rest of us sluts. Because the five children are spotlighted all the time and we all know their names by now, I can’t help but think that kind of pandering is exactly what’s going on.
I do think it’s ill-advised to question Palin’s mothering skills. We simply can’t know much about them. It’s entirely possible that Palin, like many socially conservative politicians, is a huge hypocrite and went out of her way to provide sex education to her eldest daughter, or maybe she holds her children to the same standard of ignorance she would hold yours. We can’t know. Teenage pregnancy happens in pro-choice and anti-choice households -- and in households that are publicly anti-choice but privately allow daughters to have behaviors they think should be denied to the rest of us.
But considering how Palin wants the government to control what you do in your bedroom by punishing you with mandatory childbirth, it’s fair to examine how her own teenage daughter’s pregnancy factors into this. The far right is singing hosannas for Bristol Palin, who is doing what they want to be mandatory for all women -- having a shotgun marriage and her first child just because she got pregnant. It’s a bit of an understatement to suggest that average American voters do not want teenage pregnancy and marriage for their daughters. It would be a huge disservice to the public not to seize on this opportunity to educate them about the extremist fundamental right wing that apparently wholly owns the GOP, as evidenced by the fact that Palin had to be nominated as a gimme to the hard right. Apparently, John McCain -- with his 0% NARAL Pro-Choice America rating, his unwillingness to support even rape victims seeking justice and his many years of displays of submission to George W. Bush -- was still not enough to satisfy the hard right.
Amanda Marcotte is the executive editor and writer for the blog Pandagon.net. Her first book, “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environment,” is published by Seal Press.
|
c8592c6afad7a834350037895cb37f99 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-manguward-marcotte8-2008sep08-story.html | Was Gloria Steinem right about Sarah Palin? | Was Gloria Steinem right about Sarah Palin?
Today’s topic: Discuss Gloria Steinem’s recent Op-Ed in the L.A. Times, in which she called Sarah Palin the “wrong woman” for the VP job. All week, Katherine Mangu-Ward and Amanda Marcotte discuss what Palin’s candidacy means for women’s issues and politics.
Is the world 6,000 years old? Let me consult my ovariesPoint: Katherine Mangu-Ward
I’d like to thank Gloria Steinem for her Sept. 4 Op-Ed article on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Here I was, laboring under the delusion that I had taken a shine to Palin because her views on taxes, guns, energy and the proper size of government meshed nicely with my own. Thanks to Steinem, I now know that I, like Palin, have been a tool of the “right-wing patriarchs.” While Palin is trapped in a box of McCain’s making, Steinem has set me free. I shall be a gender apostate no more.
Well, OK. I’ll crawl back into my patriarchy-built box for the week, but only so you and I, Amanda, can have a good time dusting it up for L.A. Times readers.
Steinem says Palin is the “wrong woman” for the VP job because her stances on creationism, global warming, gun control, stem cell research, wolf hunting, education reform and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are not the same as those of the “majority or plurality” of women, which I’m sure is true enough. But here’s where she loses me: Surely possessors of breasts can legitimately disagree about the proper method of wolf population control. Did God create the world 6,000 years ago? Hold on, let me consult my ovaries.
Steinem also includes abortion, sex education and the Fair Pay Act in her indictment of Palin. It’s easier to construct a story in which a uniquely feminine view is relevant on these issues. But lo and behold, women are divided here as well. On abortion, for instance, a May Gallup poll found that 50% of American women are pro-choice, while 43% are pro-life -- roughly the same percentages as men.
As a general matter, I don’t look to politicians to “speak for me” (being a libertarian cures one of such hopes). But Steinem seems to demand that a female candidate for executive office speak for her. Does anyone ever say to Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, “Hey Joe! The majority or plurality of men think they pay too much in taxes. To fail to support tax cuts makes you a betrayer of your gender and the wrong man for the job.”
I, like Steinem, will cheerfully defend other women’s “right to be wrong.” But that means if you oppose Palin, you had better oppose her on the merits. A perfectly good argument would be, “I detest that lipstick-wearing pit bull because she is wrong about whether polar bears are endangered, she’s a shill for Big Oil, and I loathe her bouffant hairdo.”
But don’t use the fact that the majority or plurality of women disagree with her as evidence that she’s misguided. Majorities, even majorities of women, have been known to be wrong. A veto-proof majority of women, for instance, believe in angels. On that issue at least, one can assume that Palin stands solidly on the side of her sisters.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
The McCain campaign’s token feminismCounterpoint: Amanda Marcotte
Katherine, I agree with you that topics such as taxes, gun control and endangered species protection are de-gendered, but I have to say that your characterization of Gloria Steinem’s views of even-gendered issues such as abortion is a bit misleading. The statistic that shows that equal numbers of men and women are pro-choice and “pro-life” simplifies a complex issue. To begin with, a number of people who call themselves “pro-life” are confused about the meaning of the term; they think it’s just a cuddly term for people who like babies. It actually means support for criminalizing abortion, which would mean that one-third of all American women -- the proportion of women who have or will have an abortion in their lifetime, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s research -- would be eligible for jail under the ideology of a John McCain-Sarah Palin regime. I doubt 43% of women want to see that kind of criminalization, especially since many of them have had or will have an abortion.
The gist of Steinem’s article was right. Women do face more restrictions, obstacles and abuse than men under the right-wing ideology that Palin espouses. Men won’t be going to jail for having abortions, but women will. McCain can’t even muster support for the most popular of feminist ideas -- equal pay for equal work. So far on that issue, we have to assume that Palin is on board with McCain. Palin likes to make fun of women who protest genuinely sexist treatment -- except, of course, when the sexism is aimed at her. Your everyday American woman loses out when the only women who deserve to be free of sexist treatment are women who run as objectively pro-sexism.
What’s really insulting to women is not Steinem’s attitude, but the McCain campaign’s choice of Palin to appeal to women. It’s the idea that women are categorically so simple that we’re going to be wowed by Palin’s peppy, hockey-mom persona and be incapable of looking beyond that to policy issues. You have to wonder if McCain and his people think women really deserve the right to vote, since they appear to think having a uterus means we let Us Weekly do all the thinking for us. If that’s the case, the McCain campaign is probably kicking itself right now.
But as someone who sympathizes with libertarians on many social issues, including gun control, I have a question for you, Katherine, woman to woman: Is the right to own a gun really more important than the right to birth control and abortion? I’ve shot more guns myself than had abortions, but I can’t help but point out that the latter probably matters more to my quality of life. After all, I can’t really foresee a situation in which I need to shoot a beer can off a fence, but I can easily picture a situation in which I’d need an abortion.
Amanda Marcotte is the executive editor and writer for the blog Pandagon.net. Her first book, “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environment,” is published by Seal Press.
|
95e31efee713388a0324a80aba0f3a82 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-manguward-marcotte9-2008sep09-story.html | Where are the pro-Palin feminists? | Where are the pro-Palin feminists?
Today’s question: Could a socially conservative female candidate ever appeal to feminists? Previously, Marcotte and Mangu-Ward discussed Gloria Steinem’s comments on Sarah Palin.
Social conservatism harms womenPoint: Amanda Marcotte
It’s almost embarrassing to answer the question of whether or not a socially conservative woman could appeal to feminists, because the answer is a tautology. The two categories -- social conservative and feminist -- are fundamentally opposed on the basic issues of gender roles and women’s rights. The libertarian strain of movement conservatism isn’t necessarily opposed to women’s rights, but the whole point of social conservatism is to roll back the social gains made by various groups, especially women and gay people. Social conservatives may pretty up their views with language about “life” and “family,” but at the end of the day, we’re seeing a struggle between feminists and anti-feminists.
The media blitz around Hillary Clinton’s campaign left the impression that “feminism” is a movement solely oriented toward electing middle-aged white women into high office. This would lend one to thinking that “feminists” would want to elect Sarah Palin vice president, no matter how bad her policies would be for ordinary women. But that’s not what feminism is about. Different feminists have different ideas about feminism, but the core ideas are pretty standard: Women should have equal access to education and career opportunities as men. Women should have the freedom to marry and date who they want and control their fertility. Women should have the same rights as men to live free from harassment and discrimination. Domestic violence and rape are part of a system of violence that contributes to the oppression of women. I’ve met feminists of every stripe and every description, but they can in good faith call themselves feminists because they believe these things.
The simple measure of one’s social conservatism is how much he or she resists feminism and the gay rights movement. Palin rates high on the anti-feminist scale. She opposes not only abortion rights, she is also against giving women the tools they need so they don’t have to get an abortion, as evidenced by her support for abstinence-only programs in schools, which discourage students from using contraception. She’s extremely hostile to same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits. There’s no reason to think Palin is against violence prevention, but as I said yesterday, she most likely agrees with John McCain that women don’t have a right to equal pay for equal work.
The only case in which I can see feminists offering even tepid support to a socially conservative female politician is in the extremely unlikely circumstances that her opponent is just as or nearly as conservative as she is, or if she offers an entire slate of Christianity-inspired social justice programs that would benefit women as a whole. Feminists are not incapable of holding their noses and voting for anti-abortion politicians who are firmly behind education and welfare programs to support families, anti-discrimination legislation and access to comprehensive sex education and contraception. But someone who believes in offering social support, much less offering women so many tools to empower themselves, is not really a social conservative at all. So again, we’re at square one. It’s categorically impossible to be both feminist and socially conservative.
Amanda Marcotte is the executive editor and writer for the blog Pandagon.net. Her first book, “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environment,” is published by Seal Press.
The search continues for the elusive pro-Palin feminist Counterpoint: Katherine Mangu-Ward
Ah ha! A point of agreement between us! I knew we could find more common ground than just non-ironic consumption of cheap beer.
You’re quite right, Amanda. There’s probably no such thing as a socially conservative female candidate who will win the hearts and minds of modern American feminists.
Your list of requirements for “good faith” feminism seems fine, and I personally find little to disagree with. And by that definition, it’s hard to see where a truly socially conservative gal with a standard pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action slate might find purchase in the feminist heart for her pointy-toed pumps.
But what I learned at the knee of my 1970s feminist, name-hyphenating, here-honey-why-don’t-you-put-down-that-doll-and-play-with-this-truck mother was that feminism is about seeing female humans as more than just uterus-bearing beings. And that’s the kind of feminist I have become. Maybe that’s why I find all the feminist hysteria around the uteri of the Palin women so confusing. And that’s why I don’t think abortion should be the alpha and omega of female political discourse.
To me, this means that the kind of powerful woman who inspires a (hilarious) website like Sarah Palin Facts should have some claim to respect from feminists both for her joke accomplishments -- “Little known fact: Jesus has a bracelet that says, ‘WWSPD?’ ” She’s a role model! “Sarah Palin can divide by zero.” She’s good at math! “Sarah Palin’s image already appears on the newer nickels.” She’s on U.S. legal tender! -- and for her real ones.
Truth be told, I haven’t been tracking feminist hermeneutics too closely. I’m sure you’d agree, Amanda, that encouraging strong female role models is an important part of feminism. But in a world where mainstream feminists almost unanimously backed Bill Clinton during the Paula Jones scandal and now excoriate McCain for choosing Palin, I’m not totally clear on what feminism entails -- if not simply support for the Democratic Party.
So is a pro-Palin feminist a contradiction in terms? Where might we find such an elusive creature? The Mariana Trench? The Bermuda Triangle? Kicking it with Amelia Earhart and Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location? Oh wait, we have one handy right here: me.
I happen to think Palin’s position on abortion stinks. But abortion and your list of other feminist concerns don’t come close to capturing all of the issues I care about most -- not by a long shot.
So here’s one answer for how a feminist might wind up supporting a socially conservative candidate: Her feminism isn’t the most important thing about her political views. If a candidate came to me and said, “I will cut taxes across the board by 50%, privatize Social Security, dramatically reduce regulations on businesses and push for school choice nationwide,” I’d vote for her in a heartbeat even if she were a crappy feminist. Palin falls short of this libertarian dream, of course, but you get my point.
Maybe claiming myself as part of the feminist sisterhood complicates things too much. Since you, Gloria Steinem and company have more at stake in holding on to the label “feminist” than I do, and you don’t seem to want me in your club, I’ll cheerfully relinquish the title for the duration of our Dust-Up.
But if I’m to be drummed out of the sisterhood, then the last, best hope for a socially conservative woman like Palin to win over anyone who calls herself a feminist goes with me. Perhaps you say good riddance to bad rubbish?
Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
|
30211daec4fe94ae8cde5a709ce6e939 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-mcgough17may17-story.html | Ivies poisoned | Ivies poisoned
Now I know how members of obscure occupations or ethnic groups feel when their existence is discovered by The New York Times.
As a graduate of a small liberal-arts college, I sometimes wondered whether the Times thought that everyone attended an Ivy League college. How else to explain the obsessive quality with which (to take one example) the Gray Lady covered happenings great and small at Harvard?
Granted, it was news when then-Harvard president and former treasury secretary Larry Summers (now a contributing editor of the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed page) made career-ending comments that seemed to disparage the math skills of women, a cheap shot that was heard around the world as defined by the Times. But consider the blanket coverage the paper afforded to a much less cosmic story, the revelation that a Harvard sophomore had plagiarized several passages from a young-adult author.
Recently, however, The Times has discovered non-Ivy colleges. In February, the paper published a generous feature story about Loren Pope, a journalist-turned-counselor and the author of a book called Colleges That Change Lives: 40 Schools That Will Change the Way You Think About Colleges. (One of the 40 is my alma mater, Allegheny College.) The story by Alan Finder noted that Pope had long promoted “small, little-known liberal arts colleges” and that “he sees as false the assumption that the selectivity of Ivy League and other elite colleges translates into the best education.”
The story included the most provocative assertion in Pope’s book: that “for the undergraduates, the Ivies and their clones are scams. In those universities, you will be ignored. There are no rewards for teaching, so professors, famous or not, do little of it.” On Wednesday the Times published a follow-up piece by Finder that suggested an additional reason for exploring the world outside the Ivy League: The admission crunch at the Ivies was frustrating the aspirations of the children of Ivy League-besotted Times readers.
In a story datelined Bethlehem, Pa. (the home of Lehigh University), Finder wrote: “Call them second-tier colleges (a phrase some administrators despise) or call them the new Ivies (this, they can live with). Twenty-five to 40 universities like Lehigh, traditionally perceived as being a notch below the most elite, have seen their cachet climb because of the astonishing competitive crush at the top.”
Note that their “cachet” has increasednot necessarily the quality of the education they offer. And it’s all about cachet, isn’t it?
Some of my best friends attended Ivy League colleges. (My only Ivy credential is a master’s degree from Yale Law School, where I occasionally rubbed shoulders with undergraduates; and yeah, they were pretty bright, though not more incandescent than the best and the brightest at a lot of other places). My friends are indeed bright people. But it didn’t take stories in The New York Times to convince me that a good education also can be had at “most selective” institutions like Lehigh or “more selective” ones like Allegheny. (The ratings come from U.S. News and World Report.)
More important, there are first-rate people at second-tier colleges and vice versa. Indeed, Pope told Finder that he dropped some colleges from later editions of his book because they had become too selective and weren’t admitting a “sufficiently broad range of students.”
My only quarrel with Pope is that he seems to project his own nuanced view of higher education on to those who hire graduates. In a prefatory chapter titled “Relax! Your Future Is Assured!,” he denies that an Ivy League diploma has any influence on career success “as the corporate downsizings of the early ‘90s proved.”
On this point, alas, Pope in not infallible. Although I haven’t conducted a study, scientific or otherwise, I’m morally certain that in elite journalism circles, a degree from Harvard or Yale still trumps one from one of the “new Ivies” or from “colleges that change lives” or even from stellar public universities like Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan. And not only in journalistic circles: The old school tie doesn’t bind as tightly in this country as it does in Britain, but it’s worth pulling in that job interview.
Last week I had lunch with an aspiring journalist with two impressive internships behind him and “good clips.” I assured him these would be assets as he sought a perch in our business, but that he also would be helpedI should have said disproportionatelyby his degree from an Ivy League school. Never mind that it was a place that Loren Pope says provided “miserable educations” to the sons of two unnamed college presidents.
When I wished him good luck, I didn’t say: “Relax! Your Future is Assured.” But it wouldn’t have been much of an exaggeration.
Michael McGough is The Times’ senior editorial writer. Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
|
1934b6a44edc486459586f7a1f6f6876 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-mcgough19apr19-story.html | How much outrage can a level playing field contain? | How much outrage can a level playing field contain?
Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
When I speak to journalism classes, I like to say that there are two kinds of editorial writers: those who read the morning paper and exclaim: “Isn’t that outrageous!” and those who read the paper and say: “Isn’t that interesting!” The editorial writers of The New York Times are almost always in outrage mode, but especially when the subject is the role of money in political campaigns.
In an April 5 editorial, the (other) Times reacted apoplectically to the news that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were rolling in (perfectly legal) campaign contributions. The editorial began by pointing out that Obama, at least, realized he was doing something tacky:
“At least one of the presidential candidates making the first feverish dash of the 2008 fund-raising derby felt obliged to describe the tastelessness of the race. ‘I’m raising obscene amounts of money,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, hardly pausing on his way to piling up a first-round total of $25 million.
Note the editorial’s emphasis on aesthetics: Successful fund raising is “tasteless” and “obscene” and the dollars contributed by people (including rich people!) are “piling up.”
Why is this bad? Because, the editorial harrumphed, Americans were showing the money in a race “that is supposed to be a different sort of competition -- if not of ideas, then at least of personalities and positions.”
Fortunately, the editorial went on, Obama (I suppose in the spirit of St. Augustine’s prayer that God grant him chastity “but not yet”) had joined Sen. John McCain in “pledging to go halfway toward sanity by embracing public finance limits in next year’s general election, providing both final candidates agree.”
So fund-raising by presidential candidates isn’t just tasteless and obscene -- it’s insane!
This editorial is animated by what I call the high doctrine of campaign finance reform, the belief that the law can and should “level the playing field” of politics by reducing the advantages conferred on some candidates and citizens by the fact that they have more money than the next fellow.
It’s a popular idea, and it’s infused by the same priggish aversion to filthy lucre that moves some liberals to pine for a tax-supported, BBC-like broadcasting system that wouldn’t be dependent on morally corrupting advertising revenues. Unfortunately, the high doctrine of campaign finance reform -- while it has appealed to Congress at times -- has been resoundingly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
True, the court has upheld limits on the size of campaign contributions to candidates and party organizations, and it even has allowed Congress to impose a blackout on some “issue ads” broadcast close to an election if they mention a candidate by name and are paid for out of corporation or union treasuries.
But in approving these restrictions on political speech, the court has made it clear that it was doing so not to “level the playing field” or empower shallow-pocketed candidates or voters. The restrictions are justified on another ground altogether -- Congress’ decision to “limit the actuality and appearance of corruption.” (The quotation is from a 2003 ruling upholding most of the McCain-Feingold law.)
This is the low (or modest) doctrine of campaign finance reform -- that real or apparent corruption can justify some restrictions on what is otherwise protected political speech. As for the high doctrine/level-playing-field approach, it is was renounced by the court in the granddaddy of all campaign-finance decisions, the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo.
In that post-Watergate case, the court indeed upheld limits on contributions (which have low speech value because they are used to express the candidate’s message, not the contributor’s). But it struck down limits on campaign expenditures, including expenditures by independent actors -- be they Hollywood moguls or do-gooders with trust funds -- who have a lot of money to bestow on the political flavor of the month.
Here’s the money quote, as Andrew Sullivan would put it:
“It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates... But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”
Thus was the high doctrine of campaign finance reform brought low -- as it should have been. Yet it’s the high doctrine that is used to condemn as “tasteless” or “obscene” the fact that Barack Obama has inspired lots of Americans -- some rich, some poor -- to contribute to his cause, not because that donation buys a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom or an earmark in the next appropriations bill but because they believe in the man.
I find that not outrageous but interesting.
Michael McGough is The Times’ senior editorial writer.
|
f97e0ba7426884f253e8a1c950cd2192 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-mcgough22feb22-story.html | Shield repealed | Shield repealed
Whatever its other consequences for the Republic, the investigation that resulted in the perjury trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby produced a memorable manifesto for a troubling but hard-to-refute position: that the dawn of the blogosphere has fatally complicated the argument for legal privileges for journalists.
The author of this essay isn’t a journalist or a professor but a judge. In 2005, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that journalists Judith Miller and Matt Cooper could be jailed for refusing to identify their sources in the Valerie Plame case, Circuit Judge David Sentelle, the author of the majority opinion, also wrote a separate opinion taking aim at the pretensions of the mainstream media.
“Are we then to create a privilege that protects only those reporters employed by Time Magazine, The New York Times and other media giants,” Sentelle asked, “or do we extend that protection as well to the owner of a desktop printer producing a weekly newsletter to inform his neighbors, lodge brothers, co-religionists or co-conspirators? Perhaps more to the point today, does the privilege also protect the proprietor of a Web log: the stereotypical ‘blogger’ sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? If not, why not?”
To paraphrase Roseanne Roseannadanna from Saturday Night Live, you ask a lot of questions, Judge Sentelle. And none of the answers is very comforting either to MSM veterans like me or to the boys and girls of the blogosphere.
Some legal back story: Although reporters routinely invoke the First Amendment in insisting on the right to protect their confidential sources from prying prosecutors, the Supreme Court disagrees.
In a still-binding 1972 case called Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Byron White gave it to the press straight: “The issue in these cases is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries abridges the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. We hold that it does not.”
The decision was 5-4, though Justice Lewis Powell, who signed White’s opinion, also contributed a weaselly concurrence in which he offered the press this consolation prize: “The Court does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources.” This had led some hopeful journalists and media lawyers to view Branzburg as a “4-1-4" decision, but the wiggle room Powell seemed to offer hasn’t been a great help.
State law is more congenial. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that provide greater or lesser protection to confidential sources, and in some other states the privilege has been established by the courts. But in the vast majority of states it’s the MSM that benefits from the privilege. The language of California’s statute, now part of the state constitution, is illustrative. It protects a “publisher, editor, reporter or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed.”
Recently a state appeals court extended the California shield law’s protection to online news services as well, an innovation welcomed by The Times in an editorial endorsing a federal shield law. But that doesn’t really answer the question left hanging by Sentelle, which is basically: Why stop there?
I’m familiar with all of the answers: One formula is to say that the reporter’s privilege attaches to anyone in the business of journalism. But what does that mean? Must you be paid for your blogging to earn that protection? What if no news organization wants to buy, or even link to, the article that you put together with the aid of a confidential source? And if an uncompensated blogger is entitled to the privilege, why not the teenager down the street and his MySpace page?
The leading alternative to the “professional” template as a justification for a journalist’s privilege is a distinction between reporters and opinion-mongers. But that doesn’t work eitherMSM editorial writers have the same privilege as their colleagues in the newsroom, while in the blogopshere (as on the op-ed page) reporting and commentary are often commingled. Robert Novak, after all, is an op-ed columnist. And the dirty secret about the First Amendment is that it was adopted at a time when newspapers didn’t practice “objective” journalism.
Long before the blogosphere was born, legal deep thinkers massaged the question of whether the freedom of “the press” safeguarded by the First Amendment meant something more than freedom of speech for the press. The age of the blogger may have rendered that debate moot, because now everyone with a PC or a BlackBerry has a “press.” Yet everyone can’t have a journalist’s privilegeor it’s not a privilege.
Michael McGough is the Los Angeles Times’ senior editorial writer.
|
320c3c86301d337a91ba7fe38e0e80ea | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-mcgough22mar22-story.html | The Supreme Court’s Jesus jones | The Supreme Court’s Jesus jones
A First Amendment argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday was memorable not only because it involved the trippy slogan “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” nor because it exposed differences between President Bush’s two appointees to the court.
In probing whether an Alaska school district was wrong to suspend Joseph Frederick for unfurling his “bong” banner during an Olympic torch procession, the justices revealed just how conflicted Americans are about the institution of the public school.
The issue in the bong banner case was whether the court would reaffirm, cut back on or finesse a 1969 ruling in which it proclaimed that schoolchildren don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The little litigants in that case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, were liberal kids who got suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
In Tinker, Justice Abe Fortas quickly disposed of the argument that the armbands disrupted the school routine. He was more interested in laying on the First Amendment rhetoric like ketchup.
“In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion,” Fortas thundered, “it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”
The key words here are “the State in the person of the school.” Fortas was a New Deal Democrat and crony of Lyndon B. Johnson, who appointed him and unsuccessfully tried to promote him to chief justice. But his reference to the (capital-S) State has a distinctly libertarian ring. That building with the blackboards may call itself a school, but it’s really the state. And, according to a long line of First Amendment decisions, the state may not engage in what the court calls “viewpoint discrimination.”
This is quite a different vision of public schools than one finds in another landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education. In holding in 1954 that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Chief Justice Earl Warren rhapsodized about the public school’s role as “the very foundation of good citizenship” and “a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values.”
Chief Justice John Roberts channeled Warren in one of his questions at the bong argument.
“Where does that notion that our schools have to be content neutral [come from]?” he asked the bong-banner boy’s lawyer. “I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs. They have to be neutral on whether you should use drugs or not?”
Justice Samuel Alito, proving that he is no Roberts clone, said he found he found “very, very disturbing” the argument that a public school could censor an opinion inconsistent with its educational missionin this case, its mission to discourage drug use.
This comment came as no surprise to those who remembered that Alito, as an appeals court judge, wrote a famous opinion in 2001 (well, famous in legal circles) striking down a Pennsylvania school district policy prohibiting students from harassing each other on the basis of “actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics.” (So don’t tease the fat kid!)
The policy had been challenged by two Christian students who worried that it would prevent them from sharing their religious view that homosexuality was sinful.
Earl Warren was a “liberal,” John Roberts is a “conservative,” but they both exalt the public school as a transmitter of values (respectively, tolerance of other races and opposition to drug use). Abe Fortas and Sam Alito, despite their political differences, see the school as a stand-in for the state.
You can find support for both positions not just in Supreme Court decisions but also in attitudes toward public education. Not that combatants in the culture wars don’t sometimes switch sides for tactical reasons.
The bong-banner boy attracted a friend of the court brief from a legal group founded by Pat Robertson, which told the justices that a) they should dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” but b) if they insisted on addressing the merits, they should rule in favor of the bong dude because of “the larger constitutional principles at stake.”
In the good old days, of course, Christians wouldn’t have to raise the free-speech banner. Prayers and Bible readings were part of the communitarian “cultural values” imparted in the classroom. But if there are no atheists in the foxholes, there are no statists in the trenches of civil-liberties litigation. Christians are now libertarians, and the sinister statists are those agents of the Homosexual Agenda who won’t let Christian kids diss the “gay lifestyle.”
Maybe the lesson is this: Whether we want the schools to be libertarian or communitarian depends on whose values go to the head of the class.
Michael McGough is The Times’ senior editorial writer.
|
c56454bfb5cc22b230e21ef2a3d18a4d | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-sep-29-la-ed-health-20110929-story.html | Healthcare’s rising costs | Healthcare’s rising costs
Even a slow economy can’t stop healthcare costs from rising. A new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust shows that the cost of employer-provided insurance rose 9% this year — even as workers and their families were cutting back on trips to the doctor’s office — and has more than doubled over the last decade. The data buttress the arguments in favor of AB 52, a California bill that would give state regulators the authority to reject unreasonable increases in health insurance premiums. But they also show that policymakers must do even more to slow the growth of healthcare costs.
The report was based on interviews with more than 2,000 employers between January and May. Researchers found that premiums rose three times faster from 2010 to 2011 than they had the previous year, pushing the average cost of policies for single workers to $5,429 and for families to $15,073. Researchers also found that workers were moving in greater numbers into plans with high deductibles but lower premiums, reflecting efforts by employers and workers alike to rein in spending.
The increase in premiums again outpaced the growth in the demand for care and the cost of treatment, which have been slowed by the economic downturn. In fact, according to an analysis by the Segal Group, insurers and health plan administrators significantly overestimated how much they would have to pay doctors and hospitals. Drew Altman, chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggested that these overestimates contributed to the surge in premiums.
AB 52 would enable state regulators to examine insurers’ cost projections and, if they’re excessive, reject any proposed premium increases. That added protection for consumers will be crucial once the federal healthcare reform law’s requirement that all adult Americans carry insurance takes effect in 2014. The bill stalled in the state Senate late in this year’s session, and lawmakers should get it back on track when they return to Sacramento.
As helpful as AB 52 would be, however, it’s only a partial answer to the problem. The cost of medical treatments and prescription drugs continues to escalate faster than inflation. Meanwhile, federal and state budget cuts are shifting a growing share of the cost of treating Medicare and MediCal patients onto people with private insurance, and federal mandates to cover more young adults and provide free preventive care are adding to the upward pressure on premiums. The healthcare reform law should help slow the growth of medical expenses in the long term by improving how healthcare is delivered and paid for. Nevertheless, as the Kaiser report demonstrates, Americans can’t afford to wait long for relief.
|
36834779206a87199a2705f52c4481ad | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-apr-05-la-oe-mckibben-stop-oil-subsidies-20120404-story.html | Fossil-fuel subsidies: Helping the richest get richer | Fossil-fuel subsidies: Helping the richest get richer
Last week, the Senate voted on a proposal by New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez to end some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry. The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act was a curiously skimpy bill that targeted only oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas. Even so, the proposal didn’t pass.
But that hasn’t stopped President Obama from calling for an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz. And this month Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce a much tougher bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors.
Even if Congress can’t pass a bill to end them, those subsidies are worth focusing on. After all, we’re talking about somewhere between $10 billion and $40 billion annually (depending on what you count) in freebie cash for an energy industry already making historic profits.
We should be outraged, but there’s a problem: The very word “subsidies” makes American eyes glaze over. It sounds so boring, like something that has everything to do with finance and taxes and accounting, and nothing to do with us. But bring yourself to focus on fossil-fuel subsidies for just a minute, and you will realize just how loony our policy is.
Start this way: You subsidize something you want to encourage, something that might not happen if you didn’t support it financially. Take education. We build schools, pay teachers and give government loans and grants to college kids. Families too have embraced education subsidies, with tuition often being the last big subsidy we give the children we’ve raised. The theory is: Young people don’t know enough yet. We need to give them a hand and a chance when it comes to further learning, so they’ll be a help to society in the future. From that analogy, here are five rules that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.
Don’t subsidize those who already have plenty of cash on hand.
No one would propose a government program of low-interest loans to send the richest kids in the country to college. We assume that the wealthy will pay full freight. Similarly, we should assume that the fossil-fuel business, the most profitable industry on Earth, should pay its way. What possible reason is there for giving, say, Exxon a tax break? Year after year the company sets records for money-making. Last year it managed to rake in a mere $41 billion in profit, just failing to break its own 2008 all-time mark of $45 billion.
Don’t subsidize people forever.
If students need government loans to help them get bachelor’s degrees, that’s sound policy. But if they want loans to get their 11th bachelor of arts, they should pay themselves. We learned how to burn coal 300 years ago. A subsidized fossil-fuel industry is the equivalent of a 19-year-old repeating third grade yet again.
Don’t abandon important subsidies just because in one instance they didn’t work out.
The government gave money to a solar power company called Solyndra. The company went belly-up. That stung. But since we’re in the process of figuring out how to perfect solar power and drive down its cost, it still makes sense to subsidize it. Think of it as the equivalent of giving a high-school senior a scholarship to go to college. Most of the time that works out. But a few kids are going to spend four years drinking; consider them human Solyndras. The subsidy wasn’t well spent on those kids, but we don’t shut down the entire college loan program as a result.
Don’t subsidize something you want less of.
At this point, the greatest human challenge is to get off fossil fuels. If we don’t do it soon, the climatologists tell us, our prospects as a civilization are grim. So why are we lending a significant helping hand to companies intent on driving us toward disaster? It’s like giving a fellowship to a graduate student who wants to pursue a thesis on “Strategies for Stimulating Doughnut Consumption Among Diabetics.”
Don’t give subsidies to people who have given you cash.
Most of the men and women in Congress who vote each year to continue subsidies have taken campaign donations from big energy companies. In essence, they’ve been given small gifts by outfits to whom they then return large presents, using public money, not their own. Oil Change International estimates that fossil-fuel companies get $59 back for every dollar they spend on donations and lobbying. It’s no different from sending a college financial aid officer a $100 bill in the expectation that he’ll give your daughter a scholarship. That’s bribery. And there’s no chance it will yield the best energy policy or the best student body.
These five rules don’t get at the biggest subsidy we give the fossil-fuel business: the right to pour their waste into the atmosphere for free. But they would be a start, a statement that we no longer will be played for suckers and saps. There’s just no reason to hand the richest industry on Earth a bonus to help them wreck the planet.
Bill McKibben is a professor at Middlebury College and founder of the global climate campaign 350.org. A longer version of this piece appears at tomdispatch.com.
|
8f671e770df465868f43057465ea1aa2 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-apr-15-la-oe-garcia-anti-addiction-vaccine-20120415-story.html | Heroin vaccine won’t ‘cure’ what ails addicts | Heroin vaccine won’t ‘cure’ what ails addicts
My aunt Marion is in the hospital dying of liver and kidney failure, the result of her 20-year struggle with heroin use. I was told of her imminent death the same day news broke about a vaccine against the drug. “Breakthrough heroin vaccine could render drug ‘useless’ in addicts,” one headline read. “Scientists create vaccine against heroin high,” proclaimed another.
Meanwhile, my aunt finds temporary relief in the ever more frequent administration of opiate pain medication — the very kind of drugs she used illegally.
The idea of an anti-addiction vaccine is not new. For nearly 40 years scientists have been working on vaccines against all kinds of addictions, including nicotine, marijuana and alcohol. There are even trials of vaccines to prevent obesity. None of the anti-addiction vaccines has yet received Food and Drug Administration approval, however, and most of the studies are still in their early stages.
The headlines trumpeting a heroin vaccine were based on a finding that the drug had proved to be effective on mice during trials in Mexico (a nation that could use some good news related to drugs). Scientists now plan to test the patented vaccine in humans. If all goes well, the vaccine could be available in five years — too late for my aunt but providing a glimmer of hope for the estimated 1 million heroin addicts in the United States. Perhaps.
Six years ago, when I was a doctoral student researching heroin addiction in northern New Mexico, I received an email from a scientist studying a possible vaccine against the drug’s use. The study was in rat models, but early results were promising and suggested the likelihood of a therapeutic effect for humans. Aware of the devastating heroin epidemic in New Mexico, which had the highest rate of heroin-related deaths in the Unites States, and of my work trying to understand it, the scientist wanted to offer some hope. He wrote that he could imagine a time when heroin addiction, in New Mexico and around the world, would be a thing of the past. I wanted to believe him, but I was less optimistic.
As an anthropologist with personal ties to the problem of addiction, I have studied the social and historical influences of drug use, and that has made me skeptical about the idea of a vaccine. Entrenched poverty, social inequality and personal despair all promote drug use, and these things profoundly shape the unequal outcomes of the addicted. Where I lived and worked, illicit drugs were more available than mental health services, and heroin was often used as a “medicine” to relieve the suffering of everyday life.
On the afternoon of the scientist’s email, I returned to the drug recovery clinic where I worked caring for patients undergoing heroin detox and described the idea of a vaccine against addiction to my colleagues. Jose, a drug counselor with a portrait of Jesus tattooed on his needle-scarred forearm, called it science fiction. Monica, the clinic’s cook, doubted that such advances, if they actually materialized, would ever benefit the tecatos of northern New Mexico. She pointed out that the clinic could barely afford day-old tortillas, much less expensive new vaccines. We dismissed the idea and returned to addressing the day-to-day struggles of our heroin-addicted patients, many of them friends and family.
The development of an anti-addiction vaccine still faces major challenges. In the past, vaccines that were effective in animal models have proved ineffective in humans. This is partly because the molecules introduced into the blood to generate antibodies against the effects of the drug on the brain are incredibly tiny. The human immune system is vastly more complex than that of the animals used for testing, and it tends to simply ignore the vaccine. Scientists are working their way around this problem by attaching proteins and chemicals to the molecules to induce antibody production. Such anti-addiction “vaccine cocktails,” as they are ironically called, reflect the growing perception that addiction is a biologically based disease of the brain, making the very idea of a vaccine against addiction plausible.
One problem, though, is that even the most effective anti-addiction vaccine can’t cure the underlying factors that make people prone to using drugs, including poverty, violence and lack of opportunity. Rather, the vaccines are aimed at preventing a drug user from experiencing the pleasure associated with a particular drug. When a mouse no longer feels pleasure from a drug because of a vaccine, it doesn’t have the option of turning to another pleasure-producing substance. But humans do. A vaccine against pleasure derived from one kind of drug use might well spawn other forms of pleasure-seeking, especially when the drugs were being used in an attempt to relieve suffering.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is pouring resources into the development of anti-addiction vaccines and their future use as medical treatment. Should such vaccines one day become available, they may help some motivated individuals struggling to kick a particular substance, especially if coupled with other forms of treatment. But underlying issues of addiction causality, including inequality, hopelessness and the human desire for pleasure, cannot be addressed by a vaccine alone.
Moreover, a vaccine against pleasure and relief, however derived, raises worrying ethical and legal issues that deserve more scrutiny than is currently being given in media coverage on the anti-addiction vaccine “breakthrough.” Will vaccine therapy be implemented through legal coercion, as much of rehab is today? Will addicts take dangerously high levels of drugs in an attempt to surpass the vaccine’s effect and achieve a high? (This has been observed in anti-cocaine vaccine trials, in both mice and humans.) Will children of drug users be vaccinated?
In an Albuquerque hospital, my aunt is now receiving legally the opioids she so desperately sought on the streets. The family members that surround her hospital bed — the very ones that begged her to get clean — now ask her doctors to give her more drugs to ease her pain, and perhaps even offer her a hint of pleasure.
I am hopeful that we will one day have more effective therapies for the treatment of addiction. But in developing those treatments, we have to understand that for many addicts, the heroin or meth or cocaine or alcohol they abuse is more than an illicit drug. It is also medicine.
Angela Garcia is an assistant professor of anthropology at Stanford University and the author of “The Pastoral Clinic: Addiction and Dispossession along the Rio Grande.”
|
2a6e905899ce19c1fba03f4d6c1cb5ae | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-apr-26-la-ol-proposition-29-cigarette-20120426-story.html | Proposition 29 and the contributions of political campaigns | Proposition 29 and the contributions of political campaigns
No matter how you feel about Meg Whitman, head of Hewlett-Packard, former head of eBay, you’d have to concede that one of her biggest contributions to the California economy was as candidate for California governor. She lavished about $160 million on her failed campaign, and we’d have to guess that most or all of that was spent within the state.
It might be hard to get the engine of California’s economy revving again, but we do get a good, if short-term, cough out of political campaigns, and the most recent proof of this is the spending on Proposition 29, the initiative that would impose an extra dollar-per-pack tax on cigarettes and use most of the proceeds on medical research for cancer and cardiovascular and lung diseases.
As The Times prepares to go to print Friday with its editorial recommending which way to vote on the proposition (and it could be a mistake to infer anything about that editorial’s conclusions based on anything written here), the latest figures on campaign expenditure have come out. The two biggest contributors to campaign for 29, according to MapLight‘s voter guide, are the American Cancer Society and the foundation started by bicyclist Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor, with the two giving about $1.5 million each. Overall, the pro-campaign has raised $4.5 million.
Unsurprisingly, the forces against the tax have outspent them by huge margins -- almost $24 million contributed to the No on 29 campaign, almost all of it from Big Tobacco. That’s minor stuff compared with Whitman, but it does buy a whole lot of air time. Chances are you’ve noticed that on the airwaves lately.
Contributing to the California economy? In a way. In a very small way, compared with what smoking costs the state -- about $9 billion a year in added medical expenses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with almost $3 billion of that picked up by taxpayers to provide treatment via Medi-Cal. An additional $8 billion is lost in productivity, and the costs per pack of cigarettes easily outstrips the actual price the smokers pay.
ALSO:
Yes on Prop. 28
A princeling’s fall in China
McManus: And Romney’s veep choice is ...
|
721ac6031e0ddfb94a6d3f72952065f6 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-apr-29-la-oe-zuk-ant-sex-20120429-story.html | Bring on the aerial ant sex | Bring on the aerial ant sex
For those who think spring is all about robins arriving, or window cleaning or crocuses budding, I have two words for you: ant sex.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Those tiny black creatures marching relentlessly toward the sugar bowl or streaming across the driveway are all infertile females who have no interest in sex at all. This is true. But when the days lengthen and the earth warms, the thoughts of a select class of ants turn to passion.
An ant queen produces all of the other ants in the colony. The vast majority of them are sterile female workers, but at certain times of the year she also produces males, as well as some females capable of laying eggs themselves. These future queens and their mates have a startling characteristic not shared by other ants in the colony.
People sometimes talk about being transported on the wings of love. For fertile ants, this is a literal concept. They have a pair of transparent wings on their backs, ready to bear them up out of the gloomy passages of the nest and into the soft spring air. In some ant species, both sexes fly. In others, only the males are winged, while the would-be queens have to crawl out of the nest and send out pheromones — chemical come-hither signals — to the more widely ranging males.
The flying forms of ants are called alates, after the Latin word for wing, though the wings will be used only for the briefest of times.
I imagine the alates underground before liftoff, as nervous as any cast member backstage on opening night, fidgeting and rustling their paper-crisp wings. The so-called nuptial flights are doomed in wet or windy weather, so the insects must worry about rain. But if the conditions are right, the alates — thousands upon thousands of them — rise in clouds, flying away from the nest in search of aerial romance.
Of course, for the bulk of the alates, romance proves elusive. They are eaten by birds and other predators or fail to find a mate of the appropriate sex and species. (On the bright side, alate emergences are a bonanza for birds, which use the juicy young ants as food for their own chicks.) If two ants do manage to connect, the much-smaller male attaches himself to the female and inseminates her, whereupon his genitalia explode and he falls to the ground, lifeless. I tell my students that this outcome is the best one possible for the male, evolutionarily speaking, since his genes will live on in the queen’s offspring, but they seem skeptical.
The males vie with each other for access to the virgin queens, and they can be extremely determined. The Internet recently was abuzz over a video that photographer and ant expert Alex Wild posted on his blog, and succinctly headlined: “Male ants don’t particularly care if their mate is dead and being eaten by a spider.” As Wild noted — and who could argue — “I can’t imagine anything more unpleasant than being sucked dry by a crab spider latched to my skull. Other than the same, but simultaneously being assaulted by a sex-crazed drone swarm.”
The swarms sometimes form enormous masses. In 2009, flying ants were so numerous that they interrupted a Champions Trophy cricket match in South Africa between Australia and New Zealand. The alates from multiple colonies often all emerge at once, which helps reduce inbreeding because males and females can find mates outside their own nest. This probably happens not because the ants are communicating but because they all respond to the same environmental stimuli.
What ant sex reminds us is that spring can be kind of scary, or at least sobering, particularly for non-humans. Millions of ants, millions of robin eggs, millions of flower seeds, most destined to die before they are even fully grown, and almost all unlikely to reproduce. All that rampant profligacy, all that heedless destruction. In “Pilgrim at Tinker Creek,” Annie Dillard writes, “I can like it and call it birth and regeneration, or I can play the devil’s advocate and call it rank fecundity — and say that it’s hell that’s a’poppin.’”
I don’t know if it is hell, exactly, or if so, then the nether world bears a striking resemblance to, well, anyplace with a seasonal climate. Regardless, the swirling multitudes of winged ants remind us that spring may be about renewal, but it’s also about going for broke, about massive overproduction — and about one sliver of time when even the most earthbound creatures can break loose and head for the sky.
Marlene Zuk is a professor of ecology, evolution and behavior at the University of Minnesota. Her latest book is “Sex on Six Legs: Lessons on Life, Love and Language From the Insect World.”
|
d7954578cee63aabf4b8a5245843eb1e | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-03-la-ol-climate-science-skeptics-20120803-story.html | Climate science still trumps skeptics | Climate science still trumps skeptics
My Op-Ed article on climate science and climate hype provoked plenty of online responses -- as pretty much anything touching on this very touchy subject inevitably will. Also quite predictably, several of the comments repeated critiques of mainstream climate science that have been raised and thoroughly debunked literally hundreds of times. Here’s a sampling, along with my responses:
“theblooms” writes: “Anthropogenic Global Warming is FAR FROM PROVEN. If the evidence is so damn clear-cut, then why did the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit cook the books and falsify the data?”
Response: The East Anglia researchers didn’t cook the books. Any suggestions otherwise are based on taking fragments of emails completely out of context. Several investigations have cleared these researchers of any scientific misconduct whatsoever. The were reprimanded only for failing to respond with enough thoroughness to a barrage of freedom-of-information requests from climate skeptics.
“forparity” writes: “What we do know, is that after some 70+ years of supposed AGW: Hurricanes/cyclones have not gotten more frequent nor more powerful. Tornadoes have not gotten more frequent nor more powerful. The rate of sea level rise has not accelerated (just confirmed that w/ NOAA a month back)....
Response: Climate scientists have made no definitive claim that hurricanes, cyclones or tornadoes would have gotten more frequent or more powerful, although they have speculated that warmer ocean water could have that effect on hurricanes and cyclones (the current thinking, as indicated in the Op-Ed and also not claimed as definitive, is that Atlantic hurricanes are likely to become less frequent but more powerful). As to the rate of sea level rise, you must be referring to a different NOAA than the one I’m familiar with. Here’s what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year.”
“for parity” also writes: “To date, I don’t believe that there have been any peer reviewed scientific studies that actually confirm any global climate change -- or regional -- caused by CO2.”
Response: To date, no peer-reviewed scientific study has definitively confirmed that any single case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. The causal evidence that puts warnings on cigarette packages is based mainly on statistics and on a scientifically plausible chain of biological events. As to climate change, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers linking CO2 and global warming; you can find them synthesized in every IPCC report. Forparity’s assertion doesn’t pass the laugh test.
“jhklat” points out many times in many ways that without a falsifiable set of hypotheses -- in essence, scientific predictions (though “jhklat” doesn’t seem to recognize that these qualify as falsifiable hypotheses) -- that can be tested in the real world, the theory of human-caused global warming isn’t science, it’s religion.
Response: That’s absolutely correct. When I first started writing about the topic in 1987, there was no clear evidence that the planet was warming or that the climate was changing. For that reason, many serious scientists took the whole thing with a grain of salt. Shortly thereafter, the warming signal appeared from the background noise of the data, and the vast majority of those (completely legitimate) skeptics were gradually won over.
By now, the list of predictions that have been vindicated is quite extensive.
“justwrite3" has thoughtfully pointed to this useful list.
As to one more issue, alluded to by “TO Perspective” -- that Climate Central and I make money by pushing the notion that there is human-caused climate change (and therefore cannot be believed) -- there is this reality check: The site exists to report whatever the science turns up. I would presumably make more money, because there would be more interest in my writing and the site, if I could report that the science reversed itself and showed global warming to be false.
ALSO:
Elon Musk of SpaceX: The goal is Mars
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course
As drought worsens, Congress can’t agree on farm relief
Michael D. Lemonick is a senior writer for Climate Central, a contributor to Time magazine and a coauthor of “Global Weirdness: Severe Storms, Deadly Heat Waves, Relentless Drought, Rising Seas, and the Weather of the Future.”
|
1aee2c01f73b30b878d8d8a8bac4c598 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-04-la-le-0804-postscript-coal-20120804-story.html | Coal-generated electricity -- a burning issue | Coal-generated electricity -- a burning issue
Responding to Robert Bryce’s July 27 Op-Ed article on coal-generated electricity, “Dirty but essential,” Irvin Dawid wrote in a letter published Wednesday:
“Bryce begins his Op-Ed article on coal at Peabody Energy’s huge North Antelope Rochelle Mine near Gillette, Wyo. Is that really the best place to get an idea as to how ‘essential’ coal is to our future?
“I would point Bryce to a Georgia Power Co.plant featured in a July 14 NPR report. The plant manager explained all the reasons why his plant converted from coal to natural gas — part of a wave of conversions that accounts for the two fuels each being responsible for about one-third of the nation’s electricity production.
“Coal, historically the nation’s dominant power plant fuel, has dropped from a 60% share in 1988.
“I agree with Bryce that India and China will remain hooked on coal. But when an international climate treaty is adopted by all, I believe that coal use will subside there as it has in the U.S.”
Robert Bryce responds:
The recent blackouts in India, which affected more than 600 million people, only serve to bolster my points. Over the last decade alone, India’s coal use has doubled, and yet India’s per capita electricity consumption is just 600 kilowatt-hours per year. For comparison, the average resident of China uses about five times as much electricity.
Cheap, abundant and reliable supplies of electricity drive modernity. Americans can disparage coal all we like, but for countries such as India, which gets about two-thirds of its electricity from burning coal, there is far more interest in keeping the lights on than there is in clean energy.
Dawid objects to my visit to the world’s largest coal mine, which produces 50% more energy than all the wind turbines and solar panels in the U.S. And even if the U.S. quits burning coal altogether, domestic miners will ship their product overseas. Indeed, from 2006 to 2011, U.S. coal exports doubled.
Georgia Power’s decision to switch one of its coal-fired plants to natural gas reflects the fact that in many parts of the country, gas is now cheaper than coal. If the supply of cheap gas continues in the years ahead, it will continue displacing coal, which will help the U.S. maintain its leadership position in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, America has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world since 2006.
But other countries, particularly in the developing world, simply don’t have the luxury of switching to gas. Nor do they have the option of converting to the best low-carbon option: nuclear.
As for the prospect of an international climate treaty, perhaps Dawid watched different talks than the ones that took place in Rio de Janeiro; Copenhagen; Kyoto, Japan; and elsewhere.
Given the repeated failures of those talks, there’s no reason to believe that any such treaty will be adopted.
Again, the point is obvious: We don’t have to like coal. But the fuel is here to stay.
ALSO:
Letters: Money for Mars
Letters: Romney, abroad
Letters: The ‘concierge’ Rx
|
7b3f7909c2162d5935e79fd551b831d5 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-13-la-oe-newton-column-chinatown-walmart-20120813-story.html | Newton: Culture clash in Chinatown | Newton: Culture clash in Chinatown
At one level, the debate over whether to allow Wal-Mart to open a grocery store in Chinatown seems like a big fuss over something fairly small. The store would be just 33,000 square feet and would sell only groceries and sundries; it would not be a “superstore.” The new market would create some jobs and offer some inexpensive products, but it would hardly revolutionize the local economy or bring relief to a food desert. Chinatown already has more than a dozen markets, as well as bakeries and other food outlets.
What gives the debate its intensity, then, is not so much the stakes as a clash of underlying principles. Wal-Mart supporters emphasize that the company proposes to open a legal business in a space specifically zoned for a grocery store; if such an idea violates Los Angeles’ approach to acceptable development, then what does that say about this city’s receptivity to growth and jobs?
The company’s opponents counter that many Chinatown residents have grave misgivings about the project’s potential threat to local businesses and the character of the community. If it’s allowed to go forward, they wonder, what does that say about the ability of neighborhoods to protect themselves?
Behind this local debate is a larger context: Wal-Mart is fiercely opposed by organized labor, which has fought it around the world. Labor is working with community activists in Chinatown to try to keep the retailer from establishing a foothold in Los Angeles, where unions have great sway.
Over the last week, I spent four days walking through Chinatown and talking to residents and business owners about the project. What I found was a distinctly divided community. Some of those I spoke with liked the idea of Wal-Mart coming to the area: Cheaper food, they said , would be welcome, especially at a time when many are stretching budgets. Many more of the people I spoke to, though, opposed it. They worried about the erosion of their neighborhood’s integrity and history, and they expressed concern that the new supermarket would drive local stores out of business.
Rita Lee was sitting outside the Thien Hau Temple on a hot morning last week, accompanied by her daughter and mother. Across the way, a few elderly men and women practiced tai chi, as others opened shops or hurried to work beneath parasols. Lee said she would have mixed feelings about a Wal-Mart in the neighborhood. “It’s convenient,” she said, noting that she now sometimes travels more than half an hour to buy staples. But Lee also worried that local businesses might be hurt.
I heard that blend of reactions over and over. The owner of a nearby electronics store welcomed the prospect of increased foot traffic. The manager of a local bakery worried that it would siphon away customers. The assistant manager at the Wing Hop Fung Ginseng and China Products store thought it might draw people to Chinatown.
“A lot of people are talking about it,” said the assistant manager, Lisa Quan, adding that her store’s inventory — heavily stocked with foods and spices used in Chinese cooking and medicine — seemed unlikely to overlap much with a Wal-Mart supermarket. Wal-Mart is not known for its wild Ohio ginseng.
Others were less sanguine. Christilily Chiv grew up in Chinatown, went off to school at UC Riverside and now is back. Her parents still live there. As we strolled through the neighborhood, she pointed to restaurants and stores owned by family and friends. She’s alarmed by what a Wal-Mart might do to the character of the community.
“This is a cultural hub,” she said. “If the community becomes commercialized, it loses its integrity.”
That’s also the view of Sarah Tseng, who graduated last year from UCLA and now lives in Chinatown. As we sat down for tea, she ordered in Chinese. Tseng, who’s active in the campaign to reject the Wal-Mart store, was particularly bothered by the willingness of the city to ignore the wishes of her neighbors. “I feel like it’s a violation of due process,” she said.
Sissy Trinh runs the Southeast Asian Community Alliance, a neighborhood advocacy group that’s been around for 10 years. She echoes those concerns, as well as the fear of what Wal-Mart might do to the economy of this community. “What if Wal-Mart brings 50 jobs, but we lose 100 when other businesses close?” she asked.
On Tuesday, the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee will consider a motion by Councilman Ed Reyes to halt all new national chain-store development in Chinatown until the community has a chance to consider the proposal. As it’s been debated, Reyes says he’s heard from business leaders who resent his intervention, young people who appreciate the defense of their family stores and others worried about traffic and other effects. Mostly, though, he hears from those who want to preserve the singularity of Chinatown.
“What Chinatown means to the people of Chinatown,” Reyes said. “This issue of character and identity is real.”
Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is “Eisenhower: The White House Years.” Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.
|
db42789116592a37dc0bd0be92413832 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-13-la-oe-pope-diesel-emissions-air-quality-20120813-story.html | Cracking down on diesel | Cracking down on diesel
California can, and should, lead the world in ending the menace of soot and black carbon pollution from diesel engines.
We’ve all choked on black smoke billowing from diesel trucks and buses. It’s obviously polluting, but what’s not obvious is much worse. Diesel emissions are a major health hazard — cancer causing, in fact. And they are a big part of the threat to our climate.
Yet cleaning them up is practical, easy and affordable — the rules just need to be enforced.
On June 12, the World Health Organization classified diesel particulate matter (soot) as a Group 1 “known carcinogen,” adding it to an ugly list of chemicals that includes asbestos and cigarette smoke. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that several thousand Americans die each year from diesel pollution.
Diesel pollution also causes respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis. And, if all this isn’t bad enough, black carbon, a major component of diesel emissions, is second only to carbon dioxide as a harmful climate disrupter and greenhouse gas.
A third of Americans and most Californians live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution, including diesel particulates, that fail to meet the minimum air quality standard set by the EPA under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Low-income communities near major transportation centers and ports are disproportionately hurt.
And in general, the problem is getting worse. Our economy is ever more dependent on diesel trucks, buses and construction equipment, and on ports, where ships, trucks, service vehicles and refrigeration units all use diesel fuel. So even though EPA standards on new diesel engines have reduced particulate matter pollution, the overall rapid growth in the use of diesel-powered vehicles and in the miles they drive offsets much of the pollution reduction. Diesel engines last a long time — heavy-duty diesel vehicles generally stay in operation for 15 to 30 years.
There is a solution for dealing with particulate pollution from even the oldest diesels. Engines can be retrofitted with a filter that reduces toxic particulate emissions by 85% or more. The filter isn’t unproven technology: More than 50,000 retrofitted diesel filters are in operation in the U.S. today.
Retrofitting a truck costs about $10,000. That’s not cheap, but if the truck has 10 years of life remaining, it’s only $1,000 a year. Why “only”? Because a 16-wheeler traveling 75,000 miles a year and getting about 7 miles per gallon (that’s a generous estimate) will consume about $40,000 a year in diesel fuel at its current price, so $1,000 isn’t a large fraction of the annual operating cost .
As important, according to the EPA, is that every $1 spent on diesel emission reductions saves about $13 in healthcare costs, in addition to creating jobs for local truck dealers and filter manufacturers.
California’s Air Resources Board is responsible for enforcing regulations relating to particulate emissions coming from diesel-powered trucks and buses. It mandates that all heavy-duty diesel vehicles comply with the most recent EPA particulate matter standards or be retired, with some leeway for trucks close to the end of their life span.
Some companies, such asCoca-Cola, have moved rapidly to clean up their fleets and advertise that fact. The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, in partnership with local citizens’ groups, have made good progress toward replacing dirty diesel engines. But neither market forces nor voluntary compliance are enough.
A survey done by filter manufacturers shows that only about half the trucks that the air resources board mandated be retrofitted last year and this year have actually come into compliance.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Every effort to clean up diesel pollution was vigorously fought by backward companies in the industry. Before 2007, the manufacturers of diesel engines even designed their computers so that after an engine passed pollution control tests, its pollution control equipment would be turned off. (Many of these “cheater” trucks are still on the road.)
The problem now is not with regulation but with enforcement. The state’s enforcement of its rules on trucks and buses has been slow and inadequate. Without strong enforcement, trucking companies will simply avoid the cost of compliance at the expense of the health of the exposed population.
We as citizens must rely on the air board; we can’t protect ourselves. But the regulators can’t do their job without our support — they have an enormous workload, tight budgets and no immunity from special-interest pressure. Lack of public awareness and lack of public pressure make it harder for regulators to enforce the law.
California has the opportunity to lead the nation on this problem. And on air cleanliness in the U.S., when California leads, the rest of the nation gets healthier. In the last month the air resources board has begun filing enforcement actions — but public support is needed to improve the state’s focus on this critical problem. The air resources board needs to hear your voice on this — so we all will breathe more freely.
Carl Pope is the immediate past chairman of the Sierra Club.
|
5446f636c7e4e91e3dc6933a5ca55862 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-20-la-oe-dietrich-dog-skid-row-20120820-story.html | Sheba, a dog of L.A.'s mean streets | Sheba, a dog of L.A.'s mean streets
For years Sheba lived on the streets with Georgina. “When it was cold, she kept me warm,” Georgina recalled recently, “and if I got attacked, she protected me.”
Sheba was a patient, loving German shepherd mix whose excess belly fat and low-hanging nipples gave testimony to her maternal nature. Everyone on skid row — kids, cops, prostitutes, pimps — loved her. But her best friends were the homeless street addicts who live outside our Catholic Worker soup kitchen, particularly Georgina.
Georgina ended up on skid row after fleeing an abusive husband. At first she lived with her handicapped, addicted mother in the St. Agnes Hotel, but she soon became addicted to crack cocaine herself and began living on the streets.
I can’t say that it was Georgina’s relationship with Sheba that enabled her to enter and successfully complete a recovery program. But I can say without doubt that the maternal presence of this loving creature was one of the few positive attachment relationships in her life for a time, and that Sheba also touched the shattered lives of many addicts and petty drug dealers on Gladys Street. It’s possible that, for Georgina, the steady, unconditional love she got from Sheba provided just enough stability to make recovery seem possible.
Something I read recently made me think about all this. In his book “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Close Encounters with Addiction,” Canadian physician Gabor Maté looks at the issue of drug addiction through the lens of early childhood brain development. Hard-core substance abuse in later life, he concludes, can often be traced to early childhood trauma: abandonment, nutritional deprivation, battery, rape.
“The majority of chronically hard-core substance dependent adults lived as infants and children under conditions of severe adversity that left an indelible stamp on their development,” Maté writes. “Their predispositions to addiction were programmed; their brains never had a chance”
He notes that humans are hard-wired to need strong connections with other humans, and that children need “an attachment connection with at least one reliably available, protective, psychologically present, and reasonably non-stressed adult.”
A dog is no substitute, certainly, for a loving, stable family or for strong human bonds. But most of the addicts on skid row haven’t known nurturing families for years, if they ever did. Sheba stepped into a void in Georgina’s life, and she made a difference.
On June 26, Sheba was hit by a car and killed. Her memorial service was held in the dining garden of our soup kitchen, but Georgina was not among the more than 30 mourners who attended. Her therapist, fearful of a possible relapse, advised her not to attend. The gathering was full of fond memories of Sheba, but toward the end there was one awkward moment. Was it theologically correct, we wondered, to pray for a dog? But then someone in the crowd called out, “Let us pray for the loving gift that Sheba was to our community.”
We did. And the people of skid row said, “Amen.”
Jeff Dietrich is a member of the Los Angeles Catholic Worker. His most recent book is “Broken and Shared: Food, Dignity, and the Poor on Los Angeles’ Skid Row.”
|
9c524951c356224ab082e94cb210590f | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-31-la-le-0831-friday-lancaster-surveillance-20120831-story.html | Letters: Lancaster’s eyes in the sky | Letters: Lancaster’s eyes in the sky
Re “Lancaster takes a long view on crime,” Aug. 25
Two principles underlie a country’s descent into fascism: One, if you don’t have anything to hide, you shouldn’t resist government invasion of your privacy; and two, the ends justify the means.
With its defense of the aerial surveillance of its residents, Lancaster is following the playbook to the letter. Never mind the 4th Amendment or the history of governments abusing this sort of “protection” of their citizens. No, just sit quietly and accept your loss of freedom.
Shame on Lancaster; worse than that, shame on Americans for their apathy toward such abuse of power.
Will Powers
San Luis Obispo
ALSO:
Letters: Romney’s overseas investments
Letters: Charters, private schools and choice
Letters: Edison, San Onofre and electric rates
|
4020a8a92668308a34102a22e3164e34 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-aug-31-la-ol-antonio-v-takes-on-tampa-20120831-story.html | Antonio Villaraigosa takes on Tampa | Antonio Villaraigosa takes on Tampa
He’s been hanging around the GOP convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum more than Mitt Romney. Yahoo News asked him whether he wants to be president.
He isn’t a Republican. He’s a Democrat. In fact, he’s the Democrat who’ll be presiding over next week’s convention.
He’s Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and, in the days before he wields the gavel in Charlotte, N.C., on Monday, he’s been in Tampa, Fla., making himself available to interviewers to “bracket” and to “compare and contrast” the Republicans’ message in general, and in particular their push to persuade Latino voters into their ranks, with high-profile speakers like U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
INTERACTIVE: Outside spending shapes 2012 election
Villaraigosa told reporters that the GOP is using Latinos as window dressing; they “can’t just trot out a brown face or a Spanish surname” and wait for the votes to pile up.
Of GOP nominee Gov. Mitt Romney’s immigration plan – including “self-deportation” -- Villaraigosa demanded, “What country in the world has ever deported 11 million people?”
“Those 11 million people have 5 million citizen children, they also have 1.5 million or so dreamers.... They are losing the demographic, not because of anything except for their policies.”
VIDEO: Watch the RNC speeches
Villaraigosa will be stumping for President Obama in battleground states with significant Latino populations, like Colorado and New Mexico, and predicted that the president would get nearly 70% of the Latino vote.
Villaraigosa -- who is doing his thing for the DNC and the Obama campaign on the Democrats’ tab, not the city’s, according to a mayoral spokesperson – talks like a born-again pension reformer, with the pressure of 10 months left on his term as mayor and enough city problems for 10 years.
His name is often batted around for a Cabinet position, including right after President Obama was elected, and it’s something I asked him about in my current “Patt Morrison Asks” column.
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS: Presidential Election 2012
He’s making his time as mayor count, he says, and then he’s much taken by the idea of spending time in a think tank or strategizing groups like California’s Think Long Committee. “I don’t see myself serving in any elected or appointed capacity right now, I just don’t.”
The mayor’s been described as being “near” the convention center or “around’’ it, but not quite inside. If he’s gotten into the Big Red Chamber itself, I’d sure like to know who gave him the credentials to do so.
Could it be that the Republicans, in their quest for a big-tent identification (without the big-tent positions to back it up), could find room even for Antonio Villaraigosa?
ALSO:
Ann Romney on women
The GOP’s unyielding abortion plank
Just what is California’s Think Long Committee, anyway?
Follow Patt Morrison on Twitter @pattmlatimes
|
3e822d7bc632085cdb42533767d96d08 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-dec-21-la-oe-kelton-fiscal-cliff-economy-20121221-story.html | Forget the ‘fiscal cliff’ | Forget the ‘fiscal cliff’
Look, up in the sky! It’s a “fiscal cliff.” It’s a slope. It’s an obstacle course.
The truth is, it doesn’t really matter what we call it. It only matters what it is: a lamebrained package of economic depressants bearing down on a lame-duck Congress.
This hastily concocted mix of across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases for all was supposed to force Congress to get serious about dealing with our nation’s debt and deficit. The question everyone’s asking is this: On whose backs should we balance the federal budget? One side wants higher taxes; the other wants spending cuts. And while that debate rages, the right question is being ignored: Why are we worried about balancing the federal budget at all?
You read that right. We may strive to balance our work and leisure time and to eat a balanced diet. Our Constitution enshrines the principle of balance among our three branches of government. And when it comes to our personal finances, we know that the family checkbook must balance.
So when we hear that the federal government hasn’t balanced its books in more than a decade, it seems sensible to demand a return to that kind of balance in Washington as well. But that would actually be a huge mistake.
History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Do you see the correlation? The one exception to this pattern occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.
Why does something that sounds like good economics — balancing the budget and paying down debt — end up harming the economy? The answers may surprise you.
Spending is the lifeblood of our economy. Without it, there would be no sales, and without sales, no profits and no reason for any private firm to produce anything for the marketplace. We tend to forget that one person’s spending becomes another person’s income. At its most basic level, macroeconomics teaches that spending creates income, income creates sales and sales create jobs.
And creating jobs is what we need to do. Until the fiscal cliff distracted us, we all understood that. Today, we have roughly 3.4 people competing for every available job in America. The unemployment rate is like a macroeconomic thermometer — when it registers a high rate, it’s an indication that the deficit is too small.
So in our current circumstance — a growing but fragile economy — policymakers are wrong to focus on the fact that there is a deficit. It’s just a symptom. Instituting tax increases and spending cuts will pull the rug out from under consumers, thereby disrupting the income-sales-jobs relationship. Slashing trillions from the deficit will only depress spending for year to come, worsening unemployment and setting back economic growth.
Conveying this is an uphill battle. The public has been badly misinformed. We do not have a debt crisis, and our deficit is not a national disgrace. We are not at the mercy of the Chinese, and we’re in no danger of becoming Greece. That’s because the U.S. government is not like a household, or a private business, or a municipality, or a country in the Eurozone. Those entities are all users of currency; the U.S. government is an issuer of currency. It can never run out of its own money or face the kinds of problems we face when our books don’t balance.
The effort to balance the books that’s at the heart of the fiscal cliff is simply misguided. Instead of butting heads over whose taxes to raise and which programs to cut, lawmakers should be haggling over how to use the tool of a federal deficit to boost incomes, employment and growth. That’s the balancing act we need.
Stephanie Kelton is an associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the founder and editor of New Economic Perspectives. @deficitowl
|
54a0b70dd67505808393388f52ddccbb | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-feb-12-la-oe-briggs-death-penalty-20120212-story.html | California’s death penalty law: It simply does not work | California’s death penalty law: It simply does not work
In 1977, my dad, former state Sen. John Briggs, my brother-in-law and I got together to discuss California’s death penalty. We agreed it was ineffective and decided a ballot initiative was needed to expand the number of murder categories eligible for capital punishment. We felt such changes would give prosecutors better tools for meting out just punishments, and that a broadened statute would serve as a warning to all California evildoers that the state would deliver swift and final justice.
We thought we were creating a national model for capital punishment.
On a shoestring budget we collected more than 1 million signatures to put the proposition on the ballot. Half the signatures came via first-class business reply mail, which my wife, Kelly, and I manually processed. We didn’t have laptops or self-adhesive stamps then, although we did have a bomb scanner, which we’d been trained to use by the FBI after they discovered a terrorist plot to kill my dad.
On Nov. 7, 1978, California voters passed the Briggs initiative on the death penalty.
Back then, my future brother-in-law was Dad’s district chief of staff and I proudly served as my father’s personal aide. Today Dad is retired, my brother-in-law is a California Superior Court judge and I am in my second term as a county supervisor representing rural District IV in the county of El Dorado, east of Sacramento.
Recently, the three of us sat together under a rose trellis in the quiet cool of morning to talk politics. Each of us remains a staunch Republican conservative, but our perspectives on the death penalty have changed. We’d thought we would bring California savings and safety in dealing with convicted murderers. Instead, we contributed to a nightmarish system that coddles murderers and enriches lawyers. Our initiative was intended to bring about greater justice for murder victims. Never did we envision a multibillion-dollar industry that packs murderers onto death row for decades of extremely expensive incarceration. We thought we would empty death row, not triple its population.
Each of us, independently, has concluded that the death penalty isn’t working for California.
I am entering my fifth year as a county supervisor, an office that has given me firsthand experience of the fiscally ruinous effect of our death penalty initiative. Each capital case the district attorney files drains about $1 million from local coffers. And that’s just the expense to the county. Much more state and federal money is spent on special incarceration and on appeal after expensive appeal. If a retrial is ordered, our county has to foot the bill all over again.
The politically conservative county of El Dorado is in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ours is a small and close community. Kelly and I have a dear friend whose husband was shot to death in their home, and we have another friend whose son was murdered. Every five years they are forced to attend parole hearings for the murderers of their loved ones. The anguish, anxiety and grief in their eyes are indescribable.
A couple of years ago I became acquainted with a woman who in 1981 survived being abducted, raped, thrown down a gully naked and shot multiple times. For good measure, her attacker threw rocks at her head. On that same day, the man murdered the woman’s friend. Because of the death penalty system we put in place, the survivor, a fragile mother of three, had to find courage to face her would-be killer again after he weaseled a technical appeal 26 years after the crime, forcing a full retrial here in El Dorado. It yielded the same verdict, and it took a huge human toll on his living victim.
If the murderer had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole rather than to death, the long cycle of appeals could have been avoided.
I cannot think of a single turning point in my thinking on the death penalty. My Catholicism teaches me that all life is precious, and that’s certainly part of my viewpoint these days. But what resonates more in my mind is Dad’s fondness for saying “facts are stubborn things.” With hindsight’s 20-20 vision and three decades of obstinate data, it’s clear to my family that we created a fiscal monster that’s taking a human toll on the very people we wanted to protect.
The ineffective legal beast created by California’s death penalty laws costs taxpayers more than $100 million annually and ties up the lives of prosecutors and victims who could be moving on to other things.
We thought our 1978 initiative created a system to support victims’ families. It didn’t. The only people benefiting today are the lawyers who handle expensive appeals and the criminals who are able to keep their cases alive interminably.
The Briggs death penalty law in California simply does not work.
Had I known then what we do today, I would have pushed for strong life sentences without the possibility of parole. I still believe that society must be protected from the most heinous criminals, and that they don’t deserve to ever again be free. But I’d like to see them serve their terms with the general prison population, where they could be required to work and pay restitution into the victims’ compensation fund.
There are few “do-overs” in life, especially in politics. With the death penalty, though, 34 years later I have an opportunity to set things right. The Briggs family has decided to endorse the SAFE California campaign, a fall 2012 ballot initiative that would replace the death penalty with a punishment of life without the possibility of parole. The state has another chance at real justice. We should embrace it.
Ron Briggs is a member of the Board of Supervisors in El Dorado County
|
2fa2811eef3a2665d1268d7e438c3af3 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-feb-19-la-oe-allen-it-is-not-possible-to-talk-to-liberals-20120219-story.html | Conservatives vs. liberals | Conservatives vs. liberals
A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled “How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must).” With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no “how” in talking to a liberal. You can’t talk to a liberal, period.
Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends (I went to college and grad school). Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I’m greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.
The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we’re evil. Tell a liberal that you hope President Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election, and you’ll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you’re a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque on the spot where one of the planes’ fuselages fell in the 9/11massacre, and you’re an Islamophobe. If you support the tea party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor-people, anti-tolerance and a “fascist” to boot.
Liberals vs. conservatives
Liberals go on and on about the “Manichaeism” of conservatives: how quick we supposedly are to divide a morally gray world into black and white. But nothing beats the Manichaeism of liberals: Their causes are holy, and ours deserve a bucketful of scatology on Daily Kos.
Here are some characteristics of liberals that make it impossible to carry on a civilized debate with them:
• The personal is always the political, and vice versa. I nearly lost one of my oldest and dearest friends in 2004 after she forwarded me an email containing an incendiary anti-George W. Bushop-ed by the leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow. Among other charges in the op-ed, which made Bush look about as caring as King George III in the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Doctorow claimed Bush didn’t care about the “forty percent” of Americans “who cannot afford health insurance.” “Do you really believe this?” I emailed back, pointing out that Doctorow had gotten his numbers jumbled. It was not 40% but 40 million Americans — more like 15% — who lacked health insurance for various reasons back then. It took six years for my friend and me to mend our sundered relationship.
Conservative vs. Liberal: Gay marriage
• Liberals constantly violate the rule that politics and religion should be off-limits in social discourse. Toward the end of 2008, I received an invitation to some friends’ Christmas party. Actually, it was a “holiday” party, since liberals never say “Christmas.” The invitation informed me that we would be celebrating, among other things, the end of “eight years of Republican chicanery.” Those friends weren’t the only ones. A college pal’s Christmas — er, holiday — card mailed around the same time rejoiced, “Our man won!” Our man? Liberals simply assume that if you possess a post-secondary degree and you’ve heard of Plato, you too would like to try Dick Cheney for war crimes and boycott the Lowes home improvement chain because it pulled its advertising from “American Muslim.” Then, when they find out you’re not on board, their faces petrify into Easter Island stone heads as they make a mental note to delete you from their iPhone address books.
• A conversation with a liberal is a minefield of political-correctness booby traps. Two years ago as I was defending my doctoral dissertation on a medieval topic, I mentioned that wealthy women of that time often functioned as patrons of the arts, commissioning beautifully decorated religious books. “Women like pretty things,” I said. OMG! I looked around at the three learned but liberal female professors on the committee, their smiles suddenly frozen into rictuses, groans issuing from their lips. How was I going to tell my husband, who had already made the reservations for a celebratory dinner, that I’d failed the defense? (Fortunately, I didn’t, but it was a scary moment.) It’s always like that: chance observations about human nature or obvious sex differences drawing blood from the paper-thin epidermis of wounded liberals. You can’t say that guys really do drive better than girls. You can’t say that girls are worse at math. You can’t even say “girls.”
I don’t have this problem with my libertarian friends, who are up for debating just about anything, especially libertarians’ favorite topic, drug legalization. But when it comes to liberals — well, I love my liberal family, friends and academic colleagues, but I try to stick to safe conversation topics such as literature, music, food and gossip. Until one of them — as so often happens — asks, “Don’t you think we ought to boycott (Fox News/ the Susan G. Komen foundation/ the state of Arizona/pick a pariah of your choice)?” And when I disagree, I’m the fascist.
Conservative vs. Liberal: Healthcare
Charlotte Allen is the author of “The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.”
|
61b7dae73776e836b0be4913c354a1ae | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-feb-20-la-oe-0220-newton-council-districts-20120220-story.html | Parsing the downtown L.A. divide | Parsing the downtown L.A. divide
Downtown Los Angeles today is divided between two City Council districts, with Jose Huizar representing one part of the city center and Jan Perry representing the other. Despite maneuverings and tweaks, when a city commission and the council finish redrawing the council district boundaries, Huizar will still represent one part and Perry will still represent another.
So what’s the fuss? Why has Perry accused the city Redistricting Commission — a citizens panel named by the council and citywide elected officials that has been drafting new lines that then go to the council, which will finalize the map — of engaging in a “power grab” to transfer real estate from her to Huizar? And why is Huizar touting the benefits of unified downtown leadership when he knows that even if he gets his way, he won’t get all the land bounded by the 110 Freeway to the west, the 10 Freeway to the south and the L.A. River to the east?
It’s about politics, of course — the prestige and potential money that come from representing what passes for the center of this sprawling set of suburbs famously in search of a city.
Map: L.A. City Council redistricting, before and after
Downtown has long oscillated between council districts, which are huge given the size of Los Angeles and its relatively small council. One consequence is that downtown is too small to be a district by itself, so it’s been joined to one of the neighboring areas. Years ago, it was connected to Boyle Heights and the Eastside; more recently, it’s been tied to South Los Angeles.
The racial implications of that connection are obvious: Today, downtown’s orientation is toward historically African American Los Angeles, with its roots along Central Avenue. If connected to Boyle Heights, it would take on a more Latino cast. Not coincidentally, the two council members vying for the area reflect that distinction. Huizar is Latino. Perry is black.
That’s part of what has made redistricting dicey in past years, and race enters the debate in other ways too. Take the battle over Koreatown, where merchants and residents want to be consolidated in a single district to maximize their clout. Curiously, though, the tussle for downtown this time isn’t drawing much racial fire. (Both Perry’s district and Huizar’s are heavily Latino.) Rather, it’s personal.
Perry spies the hand of City Council President Herb Wesson at work in the move to strip her of much of her downtown base. In a recent column for the Downtown News, she did not name Wesson but alluded to “political interests” taking precedence “over the pragmatic process of drawing district lines.” Perry and Wesson don’t get along, and Perry’s suspicions about the president’s influence were heightened when the citizens commission taking the lead in the process picked a former Wesson staff member as its executive director. Wesson also is closely allied with the mayor, as is Huizar.
For his part, Huizar recognizes that the power is on his side, so he’s sticking with the high road. He lavishly praises Perry for her representation of downtown but stresses that some of the existing boundaries create confusion. Along one stretch of Spring Street, for instance, Huizar represents one side of the street while Perry has the other. Unifying the area, he says, will make it easier for residents and businesses to get city services. Moreover, Huizar’s district needs to grow a bit to equalize the council districts, and he can’t expand to the east because he’s at the city limit. At the northern edge of his district, he bumps up against two other districts that need to grow. The leaves him looking south, which is downtown.
But Huizar knows this is about more than numbers. A council member’s district defines his base, and downtown makes for an appealing one. It means votes, of course, and in the case of downtown — with its hotels, developers and burgeoning businesses — the potential for campaign contributions. Huizar vehemently protests that he’s not in this for the money, but there’s no denying there’s money on the table.
Finally, there’s one more curiosity in this debate, which is that despite all the talk of keeping downtown together (from Perry) or unifying it at last (from Huizar), the tentative lines would do neither. That’s because the map as it stands turns over much of downtown to Huizar but allows Perry to hold on to the neighborhoods that include L.A. Live, Staples Center and the proposed football stadium.
Why peel off L.A. Live from the rest of downtown? Again, it’s hard not to see politics in that. Keeping L.A. Live in Perry’s district raises the district’s median income and provides it with a solid job base, not to mention a core component of Perry’s argument for her mayoral candidacy. Put another way: If Perry is this upset about losing part of downtown, imagine how frosted she’d be to lose it all. And there’s this: Moving L.A. Live to Huizar would risk annoying AEG and its chief, Tim Leiweke, who works closely with Perry; the council doesn’t pick too many fights with Leiweke.
The debates over redistricting already are contentious and personal. They’ll get more so before this process is over.
Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is “Eisenhower: The White House Years.” Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.
|
747c5607dfba11bfb42006c69e714a24 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-feb-26-la-oe-ka-nigerians-20120226-story.html | When big business and human rights collide | When big business and human rights collide
Among the thousands of interviews I’ve conducted as a human rights investigator over the last 24 years, one of the most difficult was in 1996, outside a refugee camp along the Thai-Burma border. I was no stranger to suffering in my country. I had fled from Burma (also known as Myanmar) just a few years before, escaping the brutal military regime after being arrested and tortured. I had gone to the camp to investigate reports that villages were being uprooted and brutalized to make way for a natural gas pipeline built by U.S. oil giant Unocal and other multinational corporations. There, I met a young mother from my Karen ethnic group whose baby had recently been killed by Burmese troops providing security for the pipeline.
That was Jane Doe, as she would later be known. She would go on to help establish the legal principle that U.S. corporations can be held liable for complicity in severe human rights abuses abroad. Now, a case being argued before theU.S. Supreme Courton Tuesday may mean that future Jane Does will have no such recourse against corporations.
Jane Doe 1 was a poor farmer whose great misfortune was that she was living in the path of the project when Unocal — now owned by Chevron — and its French and Thai corporate partners began building the pipeline. Their other partner was the Burmese military regime, and the corporations contracted with its army, despite its abhorrent human rights record, to provide security for the project.
The soldiers forced thousands of villagers to provide slave labor for the project. One of those villagers was Jane Doe’s husband. As Jane Doe told me in the camp, the military forced her husband at gunpoint to clear the jungle and carry heavy loads. When he escaped, the soldiers came looking for him. They found Jane Doe instead, nursing her baby near a cooking fire. She told them she didn’t know where her husband was. The soldiers beat her into unconsciousness and kicked her and her baby into the fire. Jane Doe recovered from her injuries; her baby died.
I remember trying to comfort her and thinking: How is it possible that foreign companies can come into Burma, hire a rogue army, make billions of dollars and have no responsibility for what their business partners do? There have been positive changes in Burma recently, but at that time, justice was impossible; the courts served the military. But Unocal was a U.S. company, and I had met American lawyers who believed that U.S. corporations were not above human rights laws.
And so, in 1996, Jane Doe 1 became a lead plaintiff in Doe vs. Unocal, a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, where Unocal had its headquarters. The case was based on the U.S. Alien Tort Statute of 1789, which allows non-U.S. citizens to file lawsuits in the U.S. for violations of international law. Jane Doe’s case was the first to apply that law to corporations accused of liability in human rights violations. In 2005, Unocal agreed to a settlement. The case has provided an underpinning for similar claims against corporations headquartered in the U.S. or doing business in the U.S., and thus it has helped victims of crimes against humanity gain some justice.
For example, in 2007 Yahoo agreed to compensate the families of two Chinese dissidents imprisoned after the Internet company provided their identifying information to the Chinese government, and in 2010 the military contractor Blackwater compensated the families of several Iraqi men allegedly killed by Blackwater guards.
But now, the use of the Alien Tort Statute in cases of alleged corporate liability in human rights cases has come under attack from big business. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The plaintiffs are Nigerians who suffered abuse under a brutal military dictatorship in the mid-1990s; they sued Royal Dutch Petroleum, better known as Shell, over its alleged support of this violence. Shell is arguing that corporations are not responsible for human rights abuses under such circumstances; that individual employees who are complicit in torture, summary executions and other crimes against humanity can be held liable, but not corporations. An appeals court decided that international law, which is considered under the Alien Tort Statute, backed up that claim.
That decision misreads international law, which does not shield corporations from responsibility, and is a major setback for human rights cases based on Doe vs. Unocal. The justices will consider whether the U.S. will become a haven for companies that are allegedly complicit in the most heinous crimes or whether it will continue to provide a legal forum for accountability and justice.
The hardest part of my job is talking to the victims and survivors of human rights abuses. The only thing that I could offer to Jane Doe was hope — hope that the perpetrators, including the corporations that enable and profit from such crimes, would be punished so that future abuses could be deterred; hope that by suing, she could prevent other mothers from losing a child.
In 1996, we didn’t know what the outcome of our case would be. One of my proudest moments was telling Jane Doe that the U.S. courts would hear her case; that a poor woman from Burma would have a fair shot against a powerful American oil company. She and I knew that our lawsuit against Unocal would not bring her baby back. But we also knew that enforcing the law against corporations would mean such abuses might be prevented in the future. Never again, we thought, would a company think it could get away with murder.
The hardest thing I’ll ever have to do is tell her we were wrong.
Ka Hsaw Wa is the cofounder and executive director of EarthRights International, which works for justice for victims of human rights and environmental abuses around the world.
|
3591cd731759adb693cc0296a0a064aa | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-05-la-ed-landscape-20120105-story.html | A truly green L.A. City Hall | A truly green L.A. City Hall
Occupy L.A. raised consciousness about something else besides income disparity: landscaping. After the two-month encampment turned the lawn around City Hall into a sprawl of dirt, the debate now is whether to replant it with grass or take the opportunity of this topographical upheaval to do something more environmentally sound. Using drought-tolerant native plantings would give the city a chance to create a high-profile, less-thirsty panorama on the 1.7 acres surrounding City Hall, and would set an example for city residents whom it has urged to replace water-guzzling lawns with indigenous flora.
There are some challenges to this outdoor renovation. At least initially, it’s more expensive to install and maintain these plantings in the park — and the city does consider it a park — than it is to lay down a carpet of new turf and mow it regularly. The very rough estimate for refurbishing the grounds completely with native vegetation and fixing the damaged irrigation system could run as high as $600,000, according to Recreation and Parks officials. Also, a native plant landscape requires a more complicated maintenance process with a different water regimen. But once the plantings fill in and the routine of caring for them is mastered, the natural landscape could ultimately be less expensive to maintain than a traditional lawn.
We like the idea of recasting the City Hall park with a native landscape, but it must be more than aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sustainable — it must be physically welcoming to the public. Long before Occupy L.A. took up residence, City Hall’s rolling lawns routinely hosted news conferences, ceremonies, a farmers market and all the strolling pedestrians those gatherings beckoned. The park doesn’t need to be a campground again, but as the headquarters of city government, it does need space for the public to promenade or protest without worrying about stumbling into a patch of prickly pear.
Of course, it’s unlikely that any of the native-plant-promoting groups that have already made recommendations to the city would suggest cactus in a heavily trafficked public garden. California has the richest flora of any state, with more than 7,000 native species, including some that bloom year-round. A native grass such as Carex pansa, which can be mowed, could be part of the mix. City Recreation and Parks officials — who say they have embraced this opportunity for a new direction — should take full advantage of the wealth of knowledge that preservation organizations and landscape architects are eager to supply.
Together, they should be able to create a flourishing landscape that conserves water but also offers a generous, usable area that is easy on the feet. The point is to lessen dependence on precious resources, not change the character of the City Hall grounds.
|
d3c907e1f6a5d05d7ffe8baf38d00ebb | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-06-la-ed-recess-20120106-story.html | Obama’s recess appointment challenge | Obama’s recess appointment challenge
Congressional Republicans were shocked, shocked, when President Obama circumvented a Senate filibuster by appointing a director for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without the consent of Congress. The appointment of former Ohio Atty. Gen. Richard Cordray did, in fact, push the edge of the constitutional envelope. But it was a rational response to an increasingly gridlocked Congress and a growing willingness among lawmakers to employ procedural tools to stop the executive branch from functioning.
Under Article 2 of the Constitution, major positions in the executive and judicial branches are filled by the president with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. While the Senate is in recess, the president may appoint people to fill vacant positions through the end of that annual session of Congress as well as the next one.
The problem with the Cordray appointment is that when the Senate closed up shop on Tuesday (after conducting exactly 41 seconds worth of business), it adjourned only until Friday. That’s because the Republican-controlled House, using an obscure requirement in the Constitution in an effort to stymie Obama, refused to let it adjourn for more than three days. Although the Constitution doesn’t define what a “recess” is, presidents had not invoked their power to make recess appointments in recent decades unless Congress was on at least a 10-day break.
House Republicans borrowed their tactics from Senate Democrats, who held perfunctory sessions with a skeleton crew of lawmakers to deter President George W. Bush from making recess appointments late in his second term. So neither party has clean hands. More broadly, Obama’s move is an escalation of a separation-of-powers battle that dates back at least three decades, and has gradually intensified to the point at which individual senators now hold up nominees to routine executive branch posts in order to extract concessions on other issues.
That’s the bottom line in Cordray’s case. Senate Republicans have said they don’t object to Cordray leading the new bureau. Instead, they want to force the White House to agree to subject the bureau to congressional budgeting and greater oversight by other banking regulators. Those are legislative disputes, not personnel matters.
The legal questions raised by Cordray’s appointment could ultimately upend any rules the new bureau may adopt for payday lenders and others outside the banking system. So while Obama’s tactic plays well with Democrats, it may not help the people the bureau was designed to protect. Nevertheless, Republicans can’t complain about Obama resorting to extremes when the Senate so dramatically contorts the notion of “advice and consent.”
|
a2e8bf31d7fadd24db5b9cc65e58dafa | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-07-la-ed-rail-20120107-story.html | Keep California’s bullet train on track | Keep California’s bullet train on track
California’s proposed bullet train took another shot this week when an independent review panel issued a report concluding that the project wasn’t financially viable. This followed negative reviews from the state auditor, the inspector general, the legislative analyst and the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies.
It’s hard to argue with such a distinguished group of experts, whose logic is unassailable. No source of funding has been identified for the project beyond the initial segment in Central California, they pointed out. Moreover, the location of that segment poses grave risks; if it were built near Los Angeles or San Francisco, it would still have major public benefits even if no more money could be found to extend it, but a spur from Fresno to Bakersfield alone would be a costly train to nowhere.
The trouble with this kind of expert analysis, though, is that it seldom takes politics into account. Planners didn’t have much choice but to place the initial segment where they did, because to qualify for federal stimulus money they had to guarantee that construction would begin quickly, and the Central Valley portion was thought to be the only part of the line that would be ready to meet Washington’s deadline. No source of future funding, such as a higher gasoline tax, has been proposed because the economy is rotten and voters would be unlikely to approve it right now. So does that mean the whole thing should be scrapped?
The project is unquestionably risky, far more expensive than voters were told it would be when they approved nearly $10 billion in bonds to build it in 2008, and unlikely to be finished until years later than promoters had suggested. Polls show that the public is turning against it, and if new information emerges forecasting more serious troubles, even we might be persuaded to dump it. But we’re not there yet, especially because the latest report, from the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.
The project’s current political ills remind us of the firestorm that erupted over L.A.'s subway, when sinkholes appeared on Hollywood Boulevard, construction mismanagement led to cost overruns, and voters became so disillusioned with subways that they approved a measure in 1998 forbidding the expenditure of county sales tax money to pay for them ever again. A decade later, they realized how shortsighted they had been; failure to complete a subway to the sea contributed to worsening gridlock on the Westside, and the subway had such clear benefits for riders that its construction troubles were largely forgotten. The result: County voters approved a new measure in 2008 to raise the sales tax to pay for, among other things, more subway construction.
The same phenomenon is already happening in Boston, home of the nation’s most expensive transportation project. The Big Dig highway tunneling scheme was a political catastrophe a few years ago, what with mistakes that prompted severe delays and caused the price tag to skyrocket. Although the Big Dig is nobody’s idea of the right way to build infrastructure, Bostonians are now reveling in a downtown park built on what used to be an expressway, and a tangled traffic mess has been unsnarled. In a few more years, the headaches will probably have been forgotten.
Worthwhile things seldom come without cost or sacrifice. That was as true in ancient times as it is now; pharaoh Sneferu, builder of Egypt’s first pyramids, had to try three times before he got it right, with the first two either collapsing under their own weight or leaning precipitously. But who remembers that now? Not many people have heard of Sneferu, but his pyramids and those of his successors are wonders of the world.
The point is, you can take the long view or the short view toward the bullet train. The expert panels are taking a short view; we prefer the long. In the end, if Californians have the patience and the political will to stick with it, they’ll have a project with extraordinary environmental, economic and transportation benefits. If they don’t, they’ll have worsening congestion, rising pollution and soaring transit expenses as gasoline prices continue their inevitable rise. We like the first vision of the future better.
|
8a601192d10553b98bd360f8e3dffecb | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-08-la-oe-0108-fehrman-jefferson-20120108-story.html | Jefferson’s Bible | Jefferson’s Bible
Rick Santorum’s near-miss in Iowa provides a reminder that, for many Republican voters (and not a few candidates), religion and politics overlap. If you need another reminder, though, consider this: recently, the Smithsonian has restored and put on display a weird and fantastic 19th century book known as “The Jefferson Bible.” That’s Jefferson as in Thomas, and this private, personal document offers a useful case study in how politics and Christianity have mixed it up in American history, right up to today.
To understand Jefferson’s Bible, you need to start with the one book he published in his lifetime: “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Jefferson wrote this survey in the 1780s, organizing it around topics like “The different religions received into that State.” But the book came back to haunt him two decades later when he was battling John Adams for the presidency. Indeed, long before Rick Perry’s and Mitt Romney’s books caused them trouble on the campaign trail, Jefferson had to deal with some very specific attacks on what he’d written about religion.
Those attacks became a key issue in the election of 1800. While Jefferson referred to “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, he preferred to keep his personal beliefs to himself, a reticence that lined up with his philosophy of individual freedom and religious tolerance. In “Notes,” he put it this way: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
In a presidential campaign, and in the hands of Jefferson’s enemies, this passage became proof of the candidate’s radicalism. One popular pamphlet from a pro-Adams minister quoted “Notes,” then countered it: “Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God,” the minister warned, “and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck.”
Such attacks proved effective enough that, when Jefferson did win the election, some families buried their Bibles in their gardens, fearing the new president would burn them. So it made sense that Jefferson continued to keep his religious views private. Years later, after he and Adams had resumed a correspondence, Jefferson described Jesus’ teachings as “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals.” The problem, he wrote in another letter to Adams, came in the “artificial scaffolding” that surrounded those teachings — the Virgin Birth, the miracles and so on.
“The Jefferson Bible” is his attempt to tear down that scaffolding. Jefferson took his first stab at it while still president. In the White House, “after getting through the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day,” he used a razor to slice Jesus’ teachings out of a couple of King James Bibles, then grouped them by subject (e.g., “false teachers”) and pasted them into a scrapbook. Its title page included these words: “an abridgment ... for the use of the Indians.” Scholars agree it was most likely a sly joke about the impossibility of circulating such a genuinely radical book, or perhaps a joke about Adams’ political allies, whom Jefferson referred to as “Indians” in his second inaugural.
That scrapbook didn’t survive, other than a copy of its title page. What did survive is a second, more elaborate version Jefferson created once he retired. This one includes four columns of text (Greek, Latin, English, French) from the Gospels, and Jefferson had his bookbinder cover it in gold-tooled red leather. Jefferson preserved Jesus’ life story and his teachings, but he removed anything that strained reason — the walking on water or Lazarus’ resurrection. And Jefferson applied this standard to the smallest details. Matthew 19:2, for example, reads: “And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.” But Jefferson carefully excised “and he healed them there.” The Smithsonian has published a gorgeous full-color facsimile of the restored Bible, and it shows the comma after “him” just dangling there.
“The Jefferson Bible” ends with Jesus’ entombment, and, given all the trouble caused by his published thoughts on religion, Jefferson seemed happy to take the book to his grave. When he mentioned it in letters to a small circle of friends, he cautioned them to keep it a secret. Even his family didn’t find out about it until after he’d died.
In 1895, his heirs sold the book to the Smithsonian for $400. A few years later, a congressman — a devout Christian from Iowa, as it happens — wrote a widely reprinted article about it. The government produced an extravagant edition at a cost to taxpayers of more than $500,000 in today’s dollars. Some protested the price. Others argued about whether the book confirmed or refuted Jefferson’s atheism. Still, in 1904 the government published more than 9,000 copies, with 14 going to each congressman — and with enough kept in reserve that a copy also went to every incoming representative or senator, a tradition that continued through the 1950s.
Today, the facts about “The Jefferson Bible” might seem like an impossible obstacle to anyone who wants to fashion Jefferson as a hero for right-leaning Christians — and America as a “Christian nation.” Instead, the book has been distorted to fit the religious right’s agenda.
There’s no better example of this than David Barton, an amateur historian who’s become quite popular with Perry, Santorum and Michele Bachmann. Barton loves archival flourishes — his Texas offices include a concrete vault filled with 18th century arcana — but his true concerns lie in the present. Though Barton admits that “The Jefferson Bible” often comes up as proof that its namesake wasn’t the evangelical Christian conservatives want him to be, he also says he can refute this. In a TV appearance in 2010, Barton fixated on Jefferson’s “Indians” title page, mixed in some unrelated material about Jefferson’s Indian policy, then pivoted to an outrageous fabrication: “He then gave it to a missionary,” Barton said of Jefferson and his Bible, “and he said, ‘Here, if you get this printed, and you use this as you evangelize the Indians.’”
There’s absolutely no evidence of Jefferson giving either version of his Bible to anyone other than his bookbinder. Perhaps it’s no surprise that last year, in Iowa, Newt Gingrich said, “I never listen to David Barton without learning a whole lot of new things.” That’s because Barton loves to cherry-pick a phrase and manipulate it support his side in a partisan, present-day debate.
But there’s a bigger problem with Barton’s method: He strips history of its complex human appeal. After all, “The Jefferson Bible” stands as one of the most interesting and iconoclastic moments in America’s religious past — one man with a razor, a pot of paste and a unique and private set of ideas. They were intricate ideas: Jefferson was no more a Bible thumper than he was a Bible burner. And that’s why he and his handmade book have enjoyed such an odd and exciting afterlife. After one politician got his 14 copies of the 1904 edition, he reported receiving more than 2,000 requests from his constituents.
Let’s hope just as many people seek out the new Smithsonian edition, where they can see for themselves what Jefferson spent so much time making — and no doubt reading as well.
Craig Fehrman is working on a book about presidents and their books.
|
f6601597fc5bd0924b344263d55c580c | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-08-la-oe-frank-why-the-tea-party-should-embrace-romne-20120108-story.html | What’s for the tea party not to like in Romney? | What’s for the tea party not to like in Romney?
Dear Tea Party Movement,
For the last few months, the world has been fascinated by your frenzied search for a presidential candidate who is not Mitt Romney. Because you found the man inauthentic, you buoyed up a string of anti-Mitts — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich. But they were buffoons all, preposterous figures whom you rightfully changed your minds about as soon as you got to know them.
It was quite a spectacle, your quest for the non-Romney, and we all know why you undertook it. In ways that matter, Romney is clearly a problem for you. His views on abortion, for example, change with the winds. Ditto, gay rights. He designed the Massachusetts health insurance system that was the model for “Obamacare.” And he’s even said that he approved of the TARP bank bailout, the abomination that helped ignite the tea party uprising in the first place.
Still, my advice to you idealists of the right is this: Get over it. Not for sellout reasons, like Romney has the best chance of beating President Obama. No. You should get behind him because, in a certain paradoxical way, he may turn out to be the truest to the spirit of your movement of all the candidates.
If nothing else, you in the tea party movement have spent the last three years teaching Americans that we are in a battle for the very soul of capitalism. And here comes Romney, the soul of American capitalism in the flesh. Look back over his career as a predator drone at Bain Capital: Isn’t it the exact sort of background you always insist politicians ought to have as you wave your copy of “Atlas Shrugged” in the air?
It’s true that Romney said that the bank bailouts of 2008-09 were necessary, while you regard them as a mortal sin against free-market principles. But you shouldn’t hold this against him. Any study of bank history reveals that free-marketeers have no problem doling out, or grabbing for, government money when the chips are down.
After all, President Herbert Hoover himself distributed bank bailouts in the early years of the Depression. Calvin Coolidge’s vice president, Charles Dawes, helped out in Hoover’s bailout operation, later changing hats and grabbing a big slice of the bailout pie for his own bank. Ronald Reagan’s administration rescued Continental Illinois from what was then the largest bank failure in our history.
The reason they did these things should be as obvious as it is simple: “free market” has always been a high-minded way of saying “gimme,” and when the heat rises, the “market” is invariably replaced by more direct methods, like demanding bailouts from the government you hate. Banks get bailouts for the simple reason that they want bailouts and have the power to insist on them — the same circumstances that got them deregulated in wave after wave in the 1980s, ‘90s and ‘00s.
In this sense, Romney, who is loud and proud when it comes to the need for further deregulation, has actually been more consistent than you. He’s the gimme candidate of 2012, so he should really be your guy.
You say Romney is an unprincipled faker. Fair enough — he is. He’s so plastic he’s almost animatronic. But aren’t you the ones who fall for it every time Fox News wheels out some Washington hack to confuse this or that corporate issue with the sacred cause of freedom? Aren’t you the ones who thought that Glenn Beck’s tears were markers of emotional sincerity?
I know, I know: For almost three years now you’ve dazzled the world with your proclamations that we’re being dragged into “tyranny,” that the country is being “destroyed,” that America needs to be “saved” — and now here comes Mitt, with his fondness for workaday compromise, ruining your carefully contrived atmosphere of panic.
But give the man credit: He has tried. He’s no stranger to the core tea party myth of the noble businessman persecuted by big government. Indeed, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009, he opened his talk this way: “I gotta get through this speech before federal officials come here and arrest me for practicing capitalism.”
With Romney, a centimillionaire venture capitalist, carrying your banner in 2012, you will finally get to submit your capsized vision of social class to the verdict of the people — the actual flesh-and-blood people, that is, not the corporate “people” who make up the S&P 500.
You will get to explain your peculiar conviction that the way to react to a gigantic slump brought on by frenzied finance is to further unshackle Wall Street. You will get to line up behind a heroic businessman, like those rugged, resourceful fellows in the Ayn Rand novels you love. You will get to go into battle for the job creators, which is what all capitalists are, right? (OK, maybe not the guys at Bain Capital, the particular outfit where Romney made his pile, but the theory is all that really matters, isn’t it?)
Indeed, your leadership cadre has already come to terms with Romney’s Bain years. When Gingrich criticized Romney a few weeks ago for his career as a venture capitalist, your media heroes exploded with outrage. “This is the kind of risk-taking, free-market capitalism that most people who call themselves conservatives applaud,” intoned Brit Hume on Fox News. Washington Post columnist George Will declared that what Romney did in his venture-capitalist days was an “essential social function” and that his company was “indispensable for wealth creation.” And Suzy Welch, wife of Jack, appeared on Fox Business to wonder why Romney wasn’t defending himself aggressively against criticism of his business career. Romney, she announced, was “an American hero to people who believe in free enterprise, or he should be.”
And that heroism, my friends, is why you will soon be signing up for the Romney juggernaut. Social issues be damned! Romney will ensure that we get the one thing that this country can’t do without on its path to hell: further deregulation of Wall Street.
The nation’s all-powerful elitist socialists will, of course, disagree, and you’ll have a field day, raging and weeping at the way they are going to set out to persecute this noble, wealth-creating soul.
Pity the billionaire: It will be a powerful rallying cry for 2012.
Yours in petulant individualism,
Tom
Thomas Frank’s most recent book is “Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right.” He is the “Easy Chair” columnist for Harper’s Magazine and founding editor of “The Baffler.” A longer version of this piece can be found at tomdispatch.com.
|
f5367725e32e61d487a988c6710e47b7 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jan-13-la-ed-antibiotics-20120113-story.html | Fatter cows, sicker people | Fatter cows, sicker people
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricted the routine use of a class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins in livestock, it picked an easy target. The agency’s move is better than nothing, but nonetheless it is a reminder of the FDA’s achingly slow and timid efforts to wean agriculture off the overuse of important medications. Call it a tiptoe forward after a recent giant step in the other direction and a long era of standing in one place.
Eighty percent of the antibiotics used in this country are given to chicken, pigs, turkey and cattle, not because the animals are sick but to fatten them and prevent illness from sweeping through crowded pens. Evidence has been building for decades that the overuse of antibiotics in livestock has helped lead to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which then present a threat to human health.
In this latest move, announced last week, the FDA restricted the agricultural use of cephalosporins, which also are used to treat people for food-borne pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli. Drug-resistant salmonella already was being found more commonly in livestock. The antibiotics also are important in treating infections in children and cancer patients.
The change won’t take a huge toll on the agricultural industry. Cephalosporins accounted for less than 1% of antibiotic use in livestock, and that was before 2010, when its use dropped more than 40%.
The new rules were obviously justified, but they represented a small gesture on the part of the FDA, which has shown far more concern about the political ramifications of new restrictions than commitment to protecting the usefulness of important drugs.
Consider that this decision was announced just a couple of weeks after the FDA backed away from a long-promised proposal to ban the routine addition of tetracycline and penicillin — far more commonly used medications — to animal feed. Instead, the food safety agency announced, it would put its efforts into “promoting voluntary reform.” Earlier in 2010, the FDA issued draft guidelines, but it hardly matters. The livestock industry isn’t about to voluntarily restrain a practice that makes its work easier and cheaper. Treating resistant infections in the U.S. costs about $20 billion a year, but that’s not money spent by feedlot operators.
In the FDA’s defense, lawmakers haven’t exactly backed up the agency. For years, Congress defeated bills to limit agricultural use of the antibiotics most important to medical treatment of infections in people. It also put on hold the FDA’s original proposal, 25 years ago, to regulate the use of tetracycline and penicillin in livestock.
Antibiotics are a little like land — no one’s making a lot of new ones. Preserving the effectiveness of the ones we have should take precedence over fattening pigs.
|
1828bd02f7fb17541e6d467a31271cf2 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0710-friedrich-catholic-animal-rights-20150710-story.html | Op-Ed: Listen to the pope: Don’t cause animals to suffer or die needlessly | Op-Ed: Listen to the pope: Don’t cause animals to suffer or die needlessly
Does Catholicism require opposition to animal cruelty, including industrial farming?
For two years I taught social studies at an inner-city high school; for six years I ran a Catholic Worker shelter for homeless families. Then, almost 20 years ago, I became a full-time animal advocate, confident that such labor is integral to Catholicism.
As one might expect, I received plaudits from fellow Catholics for my anti-poverty and educational work but less support for my animal protection work. Most Catholics I’ve encountered seem to think of such do-gooding as fundamentally removed from religious imperatives.
Yet Pope Francis begs to differ.
“Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork,” Francis wrote in his latest encyclical, “is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”
On the day Francis released the encyclical, he tweeted, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. #LaudatoSi.”
Leaving aside the modern method of transmission, this statement is not actually remarkable. It’s a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But what does it mean that we should not cause animals to suffer or die needlessly? Surely this admonition demands more of us than that we not personally injure and kill animals. I’m convinced that we are also obligated as Catholics to avoid paying others to kill or harm animals, absent some exceedingly compelling justification.
Put another way, “purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act.” That line also comes from the encyclical, in a paragraph in which Francis applauds consumer boycotts focused on pushing corporations to engage in more ethical practices.
Thinking about consumer choices in the context of animal rights, consider that by far the most needless suffering comes at the hands of the meat industry, which kills about 9 billion land animals annually. These creatures are treated in ways that would warrant cruelty-to-animals charges were dogs or cats similarly abused.
Most pregnant pigs, for example, spend their lives in crates so small they cannot turn around, and more than 90% of egg-laying hens are crammed into cages where they cannot spread a wing. In such devices, animals suffer both physical and mental torment.
Chickens on some farms grow so quickly that their limbs and organs cannot adequately support their massive bodies, consigning them to a life of constant misery. At slaughter, workers “are literally throwing the birds into the shackles, often breaking their legs as they do it,” to quote USDA inspector Stan Painter.
Just try watching one of the videos of factory farming and slaughterhouses that are readily available online: If what we are doing as a society to God’s animals is not a sin, what is?
No less a moral authority than Pope Benedict XVI denounced society’s “industrial use of creatures” on farms as a violation of “the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.” Or as Francis put it, “the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.”
In arguing that there is no difference between cruelty to a farm animal and cruelty to a dog or cat, primatologist (and proud vegetarian) Jane Goodall declared that “farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement and resentment, depression, fear, and pain … they are individual beings in their own right. Who will plead for them if we are silent?”
Francis could not have said it better, and those of us who take these concepts seriously should see them as a call to action.
For me, not only opposition to factory farming but also a vegetarian diet is a requirement of my faith. Since I don’t need to eat animals to survive, I believe Catholicism dictates that I must not.
But this is not just an individual concern. Our faith also demands that we take a public stand on behalf of God’s creatures.
It would be entirely consistent with the pope’s encyclical if the church positioned itself on the forefront of the animal protection movement; if it endorsed measures aimed at stopping the worst abuses, and even announced that the faithful cannot in good conscience cause other animals to suffer for something so inconsequential as a momentary gustatory pleasure.
When the church does that, it will begin to fulfill God’s promise of mercy for all creatures, as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian Scriptures, the Catechism and Laudato Si’.
Bruce Friedrich is director of policy for Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization that runs two farm animal shelters in California.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
eeee711197c021fda8da64bb014f9285 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0813-kutz-traffic-stops-20150812-story.html | Op-Ed: For a safer America, curtail traffic stops | Op-Ed: For a safer America, curtail traffic stops
In one video after another this year, we’ve seen police stops of African American drivers go violently, terribly wrong. Think of Walter Scott, killed by a police officer in North Charleston, S.C., after a traffic stop for a broken tail light. Or Sandra Bland, pulled over for failure to signal a lane change, and after a confrontation with a Texas state trooper, hauled off to jail, where she died. Or Samuel Dubose, fatally shot by a University of Cincinnati police officer after being pulled over for a missing license tag.
They should never have been stopped by police at all. Nor should the vast majority of Americans pulled over in our national ritual of the traffic stop.
In a unanimous but highly regrettable 1996 decision, Whren vs. United States, the Supreme Court held that any traffic infraction can justify a police stop, even if the officer’s actual motive is “pretextual” — that is to say, the officer really wants to search for drugs and weapons in the car because of the “profile” of the driver. Given the countless violations all drivers commit daily — exceeding the speed limit, staying too long in the passing lane, following too closely — the effect of Whren is that police are almost completely shielded from legal review of their decision to stop a driver.
But minor traffic violations, by definition, pose no significant immediate threat and represent only a marginal increase in risk to road safety. On the other hand, every stop brings a substantial danger to the law enforcement officer: Car and motorcycle accidents and being struck by vehicles are a leading cause of death in the line of duty. Stops also produce a significant risk of escalation and confrontation, with tragic outcomes.
We do not need to accept the traffic stop as the price of public safety. I have driven many miles in other countries, and I have never seen a traffic stop of the sort that I witness nearly daily in California. While precise data are difficult to secure, Americans experience police traffic stops at a rate of about 9,900 per 100,000 citizens, according to a Justice Department survey. By contrast, government reports in England and Wales show traffic stops occur at a rate of only about 2,200 per 100,000; and in France, 2,760 per 100,000. My calculations for Spain, based on its raw number of citations, is about 3,000 per 100,000.
The remarkable fact is that fewer traffic stops do not result in more fatal accidents, according to World Health Organization data. The above-mentioned countries, which have aggressive driving cultures, have 40% to 60% of the U.S. fatal accident rate, despite traffic stops being made 20% to 30% as often.
One reason for this divergence is that these countries, like many others, enforce their speeding laws primarily through radar systems that automatically generate tickets. Red-light cameras also account for a significant proportion of fines. The benefit of camera systems is not only that they permit more extensive enforcement of laws against genuinely dangerous driving behavior, but they do so without racial bias. No camera has ever Tased or shot an unarmed driver.
Americans, both politically progressive and conservative, are coming to realize that aspects of our criminal justice policies put us out of step with the developed nations we regard as peers, from our apparent tolerance of rampage shootings to our system of mass incarceration. Traffic stops too are more typically associated with countries with notoriously corrupt police forces, where they are the pretext for a shakedown.
Indeed, the Department of Justice’s report on the police department in Ferguson, Mo., made clear that traffic stops were used primarily as a means of milking minority drivers (who are less likely to contest their citations) for traffic fines.
So no legitimate concern with road safety compels us to continue with the traffic stop, even if it is legally permissible. Any municipal police chief can simply undertake a quiet, and easily reversible, experiment: Reserve the traffic stop for objectively and imminently dangerous road behaviors, and observe the effects on crime rates and traffic accidents. Local, state and federal government also could encourage the use of red-light and speed cameras, which would surely issue as many or more tickets as traffic patrol officers.
Any purported benefit of frequent traffic stops — for example the slim chance of apprehending wanted criminals — has to be set off against the resentment they engender.
Curtailing traffic stops wouldn’t solve the problem of police violence against blacks and Latinos, but it would reduce exposure to “driving while black” harassment and the collateral harms of the legal process. Police could concentrate their efforts on serious crime and immediate safety risks while traffic engineers implemented alternative ways to improve road safety. And all citizens could enjoy more freedom from overzealous and unproductive policing.
Christopher Kutz is a professor of law in the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program at UC Berkeley Law School.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
471a03ee48438e6a3d8d878ef8c06a84 | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0818-mckibben-calpers-fossil-fuel-investment-20150818-story.html | Op-Ed: Bill McKibben: Being carbon-foolish cost CalPERS and CalSTRS $5 billion | Op-Ed: Bill McKibben: Being carbon-foolish cost CalPERS and CalSTRS $5 billion
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, and then they lose a truckload of money.
For three years now, a fossil fuel divestment campaign has been gaining traction around the world. Those that have begun selling their fossil fuel holdings include France’s largest insurance company, Oxford University and the nearly $900-billion Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. Many California institutions have joined in, including Stanford University, Pitzer College, San Francisco State University, De Anza Community College — even the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which serves Silicon Valley.
But the really big money in California — the pension funds CalPERS and CalSTRS — have stayed on the sidelines.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System styled themselves savvy investors that didn’t want to make decisions based on mere morality, spurning the argument that it was time to stop investing in companies searching for yet more hydrocarbons. Instead, the funds promised to “engage” with those companies to change them.
How has that strategy worked so far? On Monday, the federal government gave Royal Dutch Shell the final permits it needs to drill in the Arctic for the first time in 20 years. And a new report shows that those savvy investors managed to lose their clients — the state’s pensioners — $5 billion in its oil and gas portfolios last year.
We at 350.org commissioned the analysis because we had an inkling of what it would show: Had CalPERS and CalSTRS listened to the scientists and the college kids, retired cops and teachers who sought divestment and gotten out of coal before it collapsed, they would have avoided those shocking losses.
As the head of Trillium Asset Management, which performed the analysis, said, “This is a material loss of money, which directly impacts the strength of the pension fund.”
This loss won’t bankrupt the pension funds, which still gained overall because the rest of the market went up so sharply. But even for a rich state, $5 billion is real money.
The divestment campaign began early this decade when British financial analysts published data showing that the fossil fuel industry had as much as five times as much carbon in its reserves as scientists said the planet could burn if it had any hope of staying below a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature — the one red line that governments, including our own, have drawn in decades of international climate negotiations. The math makes it clear that if Exxon and Chevron and their ilk follow their business plans, the planet tanks.
A morally minded investor, looking at those numbers, might say, “If it’s wrong to wreck the planet, it’s wrong to profit from the wreckage.” Accordingly, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalians and the Unitarians have all begun divesting.
A harder-headed investor might say, “If I sell, someone else will buy the stock, so who cares?” The answer, campaigners have stressed, is that selling stock exerts both political and indirect financial pressure on these companies.
And in fact the World Bank, the Bank of England, Deutsche Bank and others have warned about a “carbon bubble.” Even Peabody Energy Corp., the world’s largest private sector coal company, in its last annual report, told investors that divestment campaigns “may adversely affect the demand for and price of securities issued by us, and impact our access to the capital and financial markets.” (The corporation’s stock, by the way, which sold at $72 four years ago, closed Monday at $1.18.)
A practical investor might say, “These scientists are bringing me new information, knowledge that isn’t yet fully priced into these investments. If we can’t safely burn all that coal and oil and gas, perhaps we won’t burn it. Maybe world leaders will start to restrict the use of carbon.” And, indeed, they have begun to do so in the run-up to this year’s big Paris climate conference.
So far, it’s the divestment-minded investors that have come out on top financially. In fact, over the last five years, fossil-free index funds have outperformed the broader market by 1.2%.
It’s too late for California’s funds to avoid taking at least a little bath. But state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Léon’s SB 185 — part of a larger climate change package — would divest the state from coal stocks and at least get California on the right track.
And the bill’s proponents have been reasonable, asking only that the two pension funds announce their intention to divest from fossil fuels and then take five years to sell their holdings. No one wants them to hold a fire sale in a market trough.
We need our biggest, richest institutions to play their part — if not just to be ethical, then because they’re committed to protecting their clients’ assets.
Bill McKibben is the founder of the global climate campaign 350.org and a professor of environmental studies at Middlebury College.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
|
18e4664608ae6fc635984fe97c56fc2d | https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0821-wright-iraq-mission-creep-20140821-story.html | Op-Ed: Obama, be upfront on Iraq | Op-Ed: Obama, be upfront on Iraq
Let’s be honest. The United States has crossed the threshold on Iraq. We’re in it to salvage the country — again — using American military might.
But the mission has also, very quickly, grown much bigger in less than two weeks. U.S. warplanes are no longer simply helping create escape routes for the Yazidis or protecting American personnel in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. The U.S. is now directly taking on the world’s most militant extremist group, bombing its positions at the Mosul dam and beyond.
And it’s probably only the beginning.
President Obama implied as much Monday. The Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is “a savage group that seems willing to slaughter people for no rhyme or reason other than they have not kowtowed,” he told reporters. The United States has a national security interest in making sure “that a group like that is contained, because ultimately they can pose a threat to us.”
The U.S., however, is already doing more than containing the Islamic State. Washington has now dispatched warplanes to aggressively push back the Islamic State, and the pretense of doing anything less should end.
But so should the illusion about what it will take to achieve that goal. The Operation Without a Name should not be an operation without a well-defined mission — or without a “winning” exit strategy.
Given the human heartache and political headache from the last Iraq intervention, not to mention the mess left behind, Washington needs to be honest upfront in answering basic questions. I’ve spent decades on the ground and in the minutiae of the Middle East, including Iraq, and I can’t yet discern the specifics of Washington’s intentions.
What does “win” actually mean this time around? It’s pretty fuzzy right now. We’re in that feel-good phase of having helped prevent a genocide. But what’s next specifically — and beyond?
An American role is not likely to stop at the Mosul dam, where fighting reportedly resumed a day after Obama said Iraqi forces, with backup from American air power, had reclaimed it.
How long could this mission last, if the Islamic State does not crumble as quickly as the Iraqi army did? I wouldn’t bet on weeks. Or even months. This is a new phase in confronting extremism.
And, most of all, what are the potential unintended consequences?
Two leap out: The first and obvious danger is that the Islamic State will target Americans, at home and/or abroad. On Monday, ISIS boasted on its websites, “America will disappear from the map soon on the hands of the knights of al-Khalifa,” a reference to its illusionary caliphate. An English-language video also warned, “We will drown all of you in blood” in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes. In its first terrorist act against an American, the Islamic State on Tuesday beheaded photojournalist James Foley, who had been held for 21 months.
The president pledged Wednesday, “When people harm Americans, anywhere, we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done.” He vowed to act against the Islamic State.
The second unintended consequence is that, after three years of avoiding intervention, the U.S. may have effectively crossed the threshold on Syria, because the Islamic State will be a threat to minorities and majorities across the region, as well as American interests, if the group holds any territory. The Islamic State controls almost a third of Syria. It has the oil-rich east and is now pushing toward Aleppo in the north and Damascus in the south. The Islamic State has slaughtered or threatened tribes and minorities in Syria too. Even if U.S. military muscle pushes it back into Syria, Islamic State forces remain a broader regional threat.
Tragically, given the political polarization in Washington, especially in an election season, any policy debate over answers to these questions is likely to break down on party lines rather than be framed in terms of what is in everyone’s long-term interests. So we get sound bites rather than solutions to a real national security threat.
Robin Wright, author of “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World,” is a distinguished scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinion
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.