Santa Cruz Observer

Diagnosis of a disease

I have never begun a piece of writing with such misgivings. (Yes, that's basically the opening line from Somerset Maugham's "The Razor's Edge," but it applies here.)

A year ago, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. So far, the impact has been slight -- a stiff shoulder and a shaky hand. After years of making a living at a keyboard, I now find it bothersome to type with my right hand, and that, probably as much as anything, has kept me from writing more in this space -- or anywhere else, for that matter.

I've never been comfortable with columns about personal matters. Sure, I'm as egotistical as any journalist, but that need to tell my story doesn't really extend to those little intimate confessionals that mark so many of the newspaper columns that  have grown so popular over the past 25 years.

Still, at least three people have convinced me that writing about this unfortunate, progressive disease might prove to be a worthwhile venture, if only as a way to document the disease as it worsens and takes hold. Jesus, I hope it doesn't, but you've got to face reality.

Two things seem to relieve the symptoms: working out and taking a drink. Fortunately, I like both. I'm on one medication, a drug called Azilect, which my doctor says has shown to slow the disease -- in one study, that is. Other studies haven't proved the effectiveness.

Azilect is lightweight stuff, or so one of my best friends says. My unfortunate pal is deep into the disease, and it's complicated by dementia, which occasionally accompanies Parkinson's. Of course I assumed upon receiving the diagnosis that I was headed to that sort of cloudy future, but my doc has urged me not to compare myself to any other patient. "Don't go there," he said.

Easier said than done. Still, there are scores of diseases that are worse than what I have  and there are any number of people suffering far worse. Let's keep perspective. Complaining doesn't make much sense. You can go nuts worrying about the worst that can happen, or you can put it out of your mind. Linus of "Peanuts" fame said it best: "No problem is so big or so complicated that you can't run away from it."

That's the way I feel. That's why I'm reluctant to write about it. But because no one can tell me what the future holds, documenting the whole thing might be worthwhile.

Why the Santa Cruz community owes so much to local law enforcement

By TOM HONIG

The tragedy of last week's shooting of two Santa Cruz police officers has resulted in an unprecedented level of community support, emotional outpouring and media coverage, but one aspect of the episode has gone unnoticed: the superior performance of local law enforcement that prevented the violence from escalating further.

The professionalism of the Santa Cruz Police Department and the other agencies involved -- the Sheriff's Office, the Highway Patrol, the Fire Department  and others -- kept the situation from degenerating into an even bigger tragedy.

The man responsible, Jeremy Goulet, shot officers Butch Baker and Elizabeth Butler, but he was intent upon taking out additional people -- other officers and innocent passersby. He had stolen not only some police weapons, but also one of the officers' protectivc vests. He wanted to make a last stand. He was a mass slayer in the making.

Local police officiers put a stop to it without more violence. They did it thanks to a tactical response by cooperating law enforcement agencies. They did it thanks to a high level of training, work that goes unnoticed by the general  public. They did it despite the emotion that must have been bubbling up inside them, knowing that two of their own had fallen. Mourning could come  later. They had a job to do --- and they did it.

Goulet was on the move after the shooting. He had driven around town and was perhaps headed back to a location where he could have made a stand -- taking aim at more people. The SCPD and SCSO stopped him. And they did so without any more casualties.

The community already knows this: our law enforcement officers do a great job -- day in and day out -- of serving those of us who live here. But most of us don't realize the level of professionalism that they can call on when the worst happens.

The wounds to the Santa Cruz community are real. The wounds to local law enforcement are severe and won't be overcome anytime soon. But the biggest tribute to the memory of Officers Baker and Butler is that they were part of a law enforcement community that responded with professionalism, bravery and competence. There is no greater tribute. 

Beware of smart media stars who are sure of their opinions

One of the great qualities of the best journalists is that they're not sure of anything. That's the main reason they get their butts out of their chair and actually go talk to somebody. My God, sometimes they even talk to somebody different from themselves, someone who views the world differently. They're interested in what others have to say and how the world looks from behind someone else's eyes.

Alas, today's journalists -- especially the biggest stars -- are increasingly sure of themselves and their own knowledge. Fox News and MSNBC are particularly known for hiring people straight out of the partisan political world: Chris Matthews, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and Robert Gibbs. They're smart. They're argumentative. They take no prisoners. They get great ratings.

The latest to join the party is David Axelrod, famously a big part of President Barack Obama's political success, who has joined NBC News.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has taken notice, saying in the Washington Post's Post Partisan blog: "NBC boasted in its news release about how 'for nearly three decades Axelrod guided successful campaigns at every level on the ballot.'  Once upon a time, that would have been a disqualification for a news organization."

These are people who are sure of themselves and of their opinions. (Of course, smart people who were sure of themselves and their opinions started the Vietnam War, the  Iraq War and a few other misguided ventures.)

Don't expect Axelrod to innocently question either a Democrat or a Republican. He's damn sure of what he knows. It's the people -- like me -- who aren't smart enough to be sure of ourselves who used to ply their trade in journalism. People like me actually were interested in what others had to say -- especially when they saw the world differently. It was one of the basics of good journalism.

True, there are still those who play it that way, but they don't get the high ratings and don't get the huge number of page views. They're  the ones who at the end of the day can be found at the grocery store or watering their lawn. The smart, opinionated media stars are more likely to be whisked away in their limo, on their way to exclusive fund-raisers. We're rewarding the smart people whose are sure of their opinions. 

As Ignatius says "No wonder the American public increasingly mistrusts the news media. We are obliterating the line between the political players and the people who are supposed to act as commentators and referees."

POSTSCRIPT: Not every political person wants to sit and pontificate. Buried deep in today's news is a story about recently retired Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, joining a think tank called the Bipartisan Policy Center, where she will co-chair the group's new Commission on Political Reform. The group will study the causes and consequences of partisan politics -- and will even look toward government reform.

Don't expect much coverage from the likes of Rove and Axelrod. They wouldn't get the ratings that way.

 

Selfish. Always have been; always will be

By TOM HONIG

I've written the same thing so many times that it keeps me from updating this blog very often. But with the new year -- hey -- why not?

Don't blame the politicians. Even those who serve in the sideshow otherwise known as the U.S. House of Representatives. Blame us. Most of us, anyway -- those who want a lot of government services and want someone else to pay for it.

The so-called budget deal achieved nothing. Go ahead -- tax the wealthy if you want. Just realize that it doesn't solve anything except making you feel better about not owning yachts and vacationing on private islands. 

Don't take it from me. Here's a great explanation from Charles Babington of the Associated Press: "Cliff Deal is Another No-Pain Punt. 

It feels almost quaint to suggest an AP story in this day of hyper-opinionated journalism ranging from Fox News to Paul Krugman. But this Babington has it right -- he says the fiscal cliff deal "is the latest in a long series of decisions by lawmakers and the White House to do less than promised - and to ask Americans for little sacrifice - in confronting the nation's burgeoning debt."

What Americans are doing, essentially, is putting off hard decisions on the next generation. You know, those young people who are having trouble finding good jobs, affordable housing and even decent health care. But the general voting public, urged on by politicians, lobbyists and media stars continue to believe that government benefits don't have to be paid for -- or can be paid by someone else.

As Anderson Cooper might say about the Baby Boom Generation (and I know; I'm one of them): "The fact is, they're selfish. Always have been. Always will be."

ADDENDUM: Two Washington journalists from The Wall Street Journal, David Wessel and Gerald Seib, have published a helpful graph right here of how the new law affects the deficit. Yes -- annual deficits remain over $1 trillion with no end in sight.

 

A skeptic and the private ballot

By TOM HONIG

I'm on my way to vote, and figure that Election Day is as good a time as any to rejuvenate this oft-moribund blog.

After a quick check of Twitter and Facebook, I figure I might be one of the few who have no interest whatsoever in urging others to vote my way -- or even share with anyone how I'm going to vote. And that definitely includes those sincere people who phone me up to ask who I'm voting for, or supporting, or even if I'm going to vote.

Last I checked, the secret ballot is one of the cornerstones of the American electoral system. And there are a minority of us who guard that right.

The great irony of a presidential election is that people turn out more than they do for any local or state election -- even though it's the local officeholders who affect their life more than a president does. There are people who are passionate about the presidential race who couldn't tell you who their county supervisor is -- or even which district they reside in.

When it comes to the presidential race, it's that very heightened interest that's actually horribly depressing. Unless we voters choose a meaningless protest vote for a third-party candidate, we're forced to choose between two men who have spent millions of dollars to either attack their opponent or regurgitate well-rehearsed talking points.

There have been few words of inspiration -- or even leadership -- spoken by either gentleman who has been running. I really would have liked to hear a word or two calling the voter to higher purpose. Are we voters so selfish that neither candidate can afford to discuss duty, sacrifice or even commitment? Nope. It's all about how bad the other guy is.

And that's why I'm a reluctant voter. And a discouraged one.

Let's just hope that whoever wins will govern better than he campaigned.

Wanted: political experience at the local level

By TOM HONIG

I ran into U.S. Rep. Sam Farr at a Denny's in Marina the other day (when I got into journalism I imagined dinners with important politicians at three-star restaurants .... oh well) and of course the discussion turned to election season.

I've been ignoring the campaign it as best I can ("Don't you ever write on your blog anymore?" people ask) but it still seems to dominate conversations.

Sam discussed the various races -- he himself will have an easy path back to office -- and in particular former California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's race for Santa Cruz County supervisor.

"I've always thought it's better for people to start big and end up in local office," Farr said. "You get elected to Congress and you have a big staff and all. It's easy."

Serving at the local level is more difficult. "It's there that you need experience." I'd add that it's there that you affect people's lives more. It's an irony that way more people vote in a presidential election than on, say, a race for county supervisor, because the local race is the one that affects where you drive, where you park, where you shop and whether there's a bike path nearby.

Let's face it: everybody knows who's running for president; most people can't name their county supervisor.

Farr is onto something. You almost get the feeling that he'd rather be back on the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

 

Change and Santa Cruz politics

By TOM HONIG

I was just putting the finishing touches on a post about the Santa Cruz Warriors deal and how it suggests a real change in Santa Cruz politics when more evidence of that came across the transom in the form of the Sentinel reporter Jason Hoppin's penetrating look at Santa Cruz politics: "In high-profile endorsement of county board race, a rift is exposed."

Hoppin's story is less about City Council votes than it is about former Assemblyman Fred Keeley and environmental activist Gary Patton --- and the Bruce McPherson-Eric Hammer race for county supervisor -- but he includes this significant description of the current state of the so-called "progressive" movement that has dominated local politics for more than a generation: 

"On one side is the current council majority: generally pro-business, open to compromise and, while pro-environment and cautious of growth, not purists about either issue. Generally, this side tends to be younger.

One the other side is the older guard, populated by hardcore conservationists and lefty true-believers. Though they established Santa Cruz' reputation for activism, their influence seems to be dwindling, with the balance of power on the council having shifted decidedly from the latter to the former."

Getting back to the Warriors' vote (6-0 to move ahead with the project), it appears as though the younger group's priorities here are starting to take hold. Just as they should.

Some 30 years ago, staunch anti-growthers took the reins of power here. Young rabble-rousers themselves, they balked at the pro-growth majority that had preceded them. It was a fool's bet to go against them, and slowly the anti-growth enviros took solid control of Santa Cruz.

Alas, time marches on and now up-and-comers see things differently. Three decades of anti-growth regulations have combined with inflated housing prices and a lack of good local jobs to encourage a new pro-business (and pro-environmental) ethic.

Don't bet against it. The mere existence of a new professional sports team in Santa Cruz reveals that things are changing. The younger ones assuming the mantle -- think Ryan Coonerty, think David Terrazas -- are open to change and open to bringing a youthful vigor to life in Santa Cruz.

Despite what some of the older naysayers living in their inflated million-dollar houses say, it's not a return to the old days. These days, younger leaders think they can protect the environment and have economic growth and lifestyle improvements all at the same time.

Oh, those miserable attack ads

One of the blessings of living in California is that the presidential race will not be close -- it's safely in the hands of President Barack Obama.

No, that's not an endorsement. Rather, I'm just commenting on  how we'll be spared the spectacle of all those attack ads on television. Those are already airing  in tossup states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The latest attack ads from both the Obama side and the Romney side are as dreary as they are effective. Which brings to mind a column I wrote during the California gubernatorial campaign two years ago.

So I'm reproducing it here: it still rings true and it sums up how miserable this horribly negative campaign will be between now and November. It's as follows:

 

The campaign commercial you'll never see

By TOM HONIG

            Two-time Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson refused to appear in televised commercial during his campaigns in 1952 and 1956 -- saying that doing so was beneath his dignity.

            Too bad that Adlai's not on the ballot today. He'd get my vote.

            Election season once was the political junkie's most exciting time of year. It was like draft day for the fantasy football fanatic.

            Alas, no more. The barrage of television commercials is as depressing as it is offensive, with messaging and negativity aimed squarely at manipulating the least informed voters. Attack ads do two things: they make anyone running for office look greedy and/or crooked; they also effectively win elections. Alas, that's the problem. No one -- winners or losers -- emerge unscathed.

            Journalist Michael Kinsley said it well when he described how what is often termed a "gaffe" by a candidate is actually one of those rare moments when he or she accidentally goes off message and tells the truth.

            I've yet to see a television commercial during this campaign season that doesn't tick me off. So, in the spirit of offering an alternative, here's the script for a campaign commercial that I'd like to see. It's for any office and a candidate from either party -- or, even better, an independent.

 

            SCENE: A candidate sits at a desk. A simple backdrop, maybe a shelf with a few books. There's no American flag (not because we don't like the flag, but we're tired of phony patriotic props.)

 

            The candidate speaks:

            "Good evening, voters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, because I've decided that the professionally produced attack commercials add nothing to the public debate.

            "Before I start, let me point out that my opponent is an ethical person with high standards, someone whom I respect. I do think, however, that I'm the preferable candidate, and by the time I finish this talk, I hope you'll agree.

            "We have a number of challenges before us. Simply put, our government does not have the resources we need in order to satisfy everyone. In fact, governing involves knowing what NOT to do more often than embarking on new programs. Please keep in mind that few government programs benefit everyone. In fact, any new legislation carries with it the possibility of unintended consequences. So I'm not going to promise that I'll bring every one of you prosperity. I won't, because I can't.

            "Our worst problems won't be easy to solve. Take crime, for example. It's horrible when anyone is victimized by a violent crime, but the reality is that crime rates are actually going down. When politicians say that they're going to be 'tough on crime,' what they're really saying is that they want your vote. They want to scare you and then offer up some ineffective program like 'Three Strikes' that ends up doing nothing more than driving up prison costs.

            "Or take the pension problem. I'd love to go on and on about how irresponsible politicians have moved the state toward bankruptcy simply because they didn't stand up to the unions. That may be true, but blaming them doesn't solve the problem. The answer is to pursue legal means to reduce the costs. Unfortunately, we're going to have to cut programs in order to pay off these deals that never should have been made in the first place.

            "Education. We have some major problems here. The sad reality is that public education is not producing the results that we want. Just ask any community college teacher, and she'll tell you that students are coming in without basic skills. Here again, I could blame teachers, or parents, or administrators. I'm not going to do that -- unless they continue to act as a roadblock to find solutions. Some charters schools have had dizzying success. Instead of fighting them, let's try to study what they're doing and adapt it.

            "My opponent has been hollering at me on his attack ads because I'm not enthusiastically supporting everything with the word 'green' in it. Others are mad at me because I believe that global climate change is, indeed, a threat. What neither side is doing is looking toward good science. What policy will have an impact? Using nuclear power might be a better answer than having rich people drive Priuses. Are we ready to put aside our prejudices and do what's best for the environment?

            "I hope you vote for me. I don't have easy answers. But I will work with anyone who has good ideas -- no matter their political affiliation. Thank you."

             FINAL NOTE: I have no expectation that any candidate at any level will use this script.

The best minor-league city in America?

By TOM HONIG

Is anyone else around Santa Cruz as surprised (and as pleased) as I am that a professional sports team is coming to town?

The arrival of the Santa Cruz Warriors minor-league basketball franchise is due at its Front Street location Dec. 23 -- an unbelievable seven-month turnaround from the time it was first proposed until the first tip-off. Of course, construction of the temporary pavilion home for the team hasn't started yet -- it's due Sept. 5, assuming the Santa Cruz City Council gives its final stamp of approval a day earlier.

Warriors' official Jim Weyerman is the man in charge of getting the team and the pavilion ready for the Dec. 23 opening, and he's spending his days meeting and greeting a variety of Santa Cruz folks as part of his outreach.

At a recent Rotary Club meeting, Weyerman enthusiastically stated his belief that the facility would be ready to go. "There is no Plan B," he said, pointing out that having an alternative is just probably a good way to make the alternative happen instead.

Negotiations between the Warriors and the city of Santa Cruz are ongoing -- as are negotiations with the Seaside Co., owners of the land. But Weyerman said he's optimistic that all parties are interested in moving the project forward.

That optimism is a sign that times are changing in Santa Cruz. This town that has unreasonably opposed varioous new facilities seems to be evolving -- particularly among younger people who are looking for more activities and even new job opportunities around town. They think having a pro sports team here is cool -- and it is.

In fact, it's more than cool. Weyerman pointed out at his Rotary talk that the new facility -- even though temporary -- will help with one of the oldest problems facing Santa Cruz: connecting the beach area with downtown. This new facility will be as important or even more important than the recently opened Monterey Bay Sanctuary Exploration Center a short way away.

Weyerman and others also visualize the potential of a permanent facility. As it stands, the pavilion will seat maybe 3,200 people and could host other events as well. Think UC Santa Cruz basketball,  the Derby Girls and even concerts. A permanent facility -- already being studied by UC Santa Cruz.-- could seat as many as 5,000.

Not everyone is happy with the proposal. Some question the cost to the city, which is assuming much of the cost of construction. However, there could be a big economic payoff, and having the Warriors' parent organization, the Golden State Warriors as a partner makes a lot of sense as well.

Already, people are quickly reserving season tickets. Weyerman says that the Warriors are ecstatic with the number of people who have already reserved tickets.

"Santa Cruz can be the best minor league team in America," Weyerman told Rotary.

Why not? It's time we give it a try.

New center a huge addition for Santa Cruz and for the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

By TOM HONIG

When President George H.W. Bush designated a huge area of California coastal waters are the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary back in 1992, no one really knew exactly how the designation would impact life here.

Actually, one important impact was known immediately: a ban on offshoroe oil exploration here. At the time, opponents of drilling expressed surprise bordering on shock that Bush -- a longtime oil man -- would protect such a huge area, running from the waters off Marin County all the way south to San Luis Obispo county. (More on that later).

But this week -- 20 years after the sanctuary designation was announced -- the federal government and local officials completed a most important step in the evolution of the sanctuary: the opening of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center. The facility -- at 35 Pacific Avenue, near the Municipal Wharf -- features 7,000 square feet of exhibits. It doesn't have fish or other "squishy"' things; it instead concentrates on exhibits on concentrating on biodiversity, geology and marine conservation.

The center does a couple important things for Santa Cruz:

1) It lends an educational element to the Beach Area. I've long thought that environmentalism is much more than just limiting growth; it's about educating people about science and the environment. Those out in the ocean -- sailors, surfers, divers and swimmers -- already know how special and important the marine world is. Now, with all the fascinating scientific displays in the center, the offshore world is being brought even to those visitors and residents who have never event gotten their feet wet.

2) It gets Santa Cruz noticed as being an important part of Monterey Bay. Those fascinated with the undersea world know about the Monterey Bay Aquarium at Cannery Row -- and maybe other facilities like the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.  Now, Santa Cruz has its own major destination -- the Sanctuary Exploration Center. And, this new center can also increase the visibility of another important coastal-related destination -- Long Marine Lab's Seymour Center, a facility whose exhibits feature live animals on display and one that's a great complement to the new center. Visitors to the Exploration Center just might be motivated to add the Seymour Center to their itinerary. (Note to UCSC officials: How about funding a shuttle that would connect the two facilities?

The new center was dedicated this week with all the usual pomp and speeches from various city and federal officials. One nice note: in addition to the elected officials, the ceremony also featured Bonnie Lipscomb, shown at left, Santa Cruz's executive director of economic development, whose behind-the-scenes coordination with the federal government facilitated the entire project.

Also speaking was U.S. Rep Sam Farr, who gave considerable credit to those in Santa Cruz who have supported marine conservation over the years -- former U.S. Rep. Leon Panetta, former supervisor Gary Patton, longtime activist Dan Haifley and others. Still I was amused by his downplaying of key Republicans in the process -- former U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson for one, who played a role in stopping the sale of offshore oil leases and who also worked hard in support of the sanctuary. Likewise the man who designated the large sanctuary area -- former President George H.W. Bush; Farr intimated that Bush was kind of forced into the decision and that he did so only as an election-year ploy. (Of course, Democrats never stoop to that, right?)

I mentioned the dismissal of Republicans to a politically savvy friend, and he brought up an even better strategy for Farr and the Democrats -- point to the environmental record of "old-school" Republicans like Bush and Wilson and point out how far the current-day GOP has turned its back on the environmental movement.

Hey -- all that political talk detracts from the genuinely important development that's signified by the new Exploration Center. It's an important part of Santa Cruz, of the Monterey Bay Area and even the entire Marine Sanctuary system. Federal officials have already predicted that this Exploration Center will prove to be the most-visited such spot in the entire national system.