Santa Cruz Observer

For Weiner, Sanford and Spitzer, is the goal public service or the lure of political power?

By TOM HONIG

Public service is an honorable calling, but for some, it's more about their own ego and the ambitious pursuit of power.

How else can you explain Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford?

Sanford fell into disgrace with his infamous romantic journey to Argentina. Spitzer -- Mr. Law Enforcement -- decided that prostitution laws didn't apply to him. And Weiner ... the less said, the better.

Yet all three think that the world can't do without their presence in public life. In fact, Congress has not been improved by having Sanford back. The people of South Carolina could easily find someone else to serve in his place. Spitzer is hardly the only qualified person for the job of New York City comptroller. (If his service there was so damn important, why did he instead run for governor back in 2006?) Or, as a spokesman for his chief opponent said:  “It’s clearer and clearer that for Eliot Spitzer, this campaign is not about the needs and struggles of New York’s middle class – it’s all about Eliot Spitzer.”

And Weiner doesn't even have the modicum of taste to drop out of the race for mayor of New York. The city has done fine without him over the past couple of centuries, but he's arrogant enough to think that the city is in need of his services. It's not. He actually said this: "I want to bring my vision to the people of the city of New York. I hope they're willing to still continue to give me a second chance."

Why should they? Just so Weiner can add to his resume?

What's the lesson here? For voters, it's this: is someone running for office because they want to serve? Or is it because it satisfies their self interest? Those are questions worth asking.

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. 

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.

Santa Cruz leaders encounter San Luis Obispo

By TOM HONIG

Take 69 Santa Cruz County folks from a variety of businesses, school districts, government bodies and non-profits, put them on a couple of buses and what do you do with them?

This week, the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce took them to San Luis Obispo, where this aggregation met with leaders from similar walks of life to learn more about how another community -- somewhat similar to Santa Cruz -- handles the kinds of issues that people here do every day.

The San Luis Obispo trip was an idea promoted by Cabrillo College President Brian King, who looked at the trip this way: 

"We have an opportunity to learn much from San Luis Obispo, a community that is in many ways like us. We will have an opportunity to evaluate how some of their initiatives might work in our counties and cities. We will be able to test and temper our notions and plans with their experiences. And, we will discuss mutual problems and complexities with  them to explore solutions neither of us have yet imagined.

"However ... I believe that the greatest benefit will be the 30-some hours we will spend together getting to know each other better."

So did it work? In a word -- yes. Our group met with San Luis business leaders, politicians, school officials and others who are trying to figure out solutions to the same problems that exist here. One particular issue that reared its head time and time again was the question of how to balance economic vitality with environmental protection.

I'll follow up on that issue in particular in future articles. Also, I'll be publishing reactions and thoughts from those on the trip.

And as for the most obvious question: was the junket fun? You're damn right it was. No, it wasn't a party like the Merry Pranksters, but it served to remind the participants that Santa Cruz is blessed with community folks who are not only bright but also simpatico. It's nice to be reminded of that.

How about some independent thinking?

By TOM HONIG

Maybe it's always been this way, but the American dialogue has been now completely taken over by a sports fan mentality.

The Supreme Court decision. Are you pro-Obama or anti-Obama? That seems to dictate what you think the Supremes ought to do. The guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman? It depends how you feel about race in America. Oil prices? If you're a lefty, blame the oil companies. If you're a rightwinger, blame the EPA.

The realities of these issues are different. T'he legality of the health-care law really shouldn't hinge on whether you're pro-Obama or not. The guilt or innocence of  George Zimmerman needs to be decided according to the law -- and not whether we live in a racist society. (It is possible, for example, that we live in a racist society AND that Zimmerman is not guilty of first degree murder.)

Leave it to a foreign magazine to put this shooting into context. Check out The Economist, which weighs in by saying "A shooting becomes an excuse for political point-scoring."

I spent years covering trials, and one thing you learn is that the exhaustive process of a trial is an important guarantee that justice will be served. No, it's not perfect, but the process is important in ensuring that a defendant is truly shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite hours of opinionating on television and many column-yards in the newspaper, no one -- except for maybe Zimmerman himself -- knows totally what happened. All the opinionating is mere speculation, often based on where one stands politically.

Our civil rights are way more important than reducing them to a political debate. Same goes with the Supreme Court dividing themselves up between "liberal" and "conservative" justices. We the people deserve better.

Is 'caring' an important political attribute?

By TOM HONIG

I've noticed some comments in various letters to the editor or on Facebook about how this candidate or another "doesn't care about" poor people ... or women ... or the elderly ... or some other group.

Sometimes you hear similar complaints from the right: liberals "don't care about" American exceptionalism or even that they're somehow not religious enough. (Take note: no one who's a non-believer could stand a chance in a national election.)

When did "caring" become such a political attribute? Does it really matter if someone "cares?" Does it matter if their religious beliefs match mine? I want people in office who are good at what they do. I want them to care about being competent. 

Here's the deal. Politics is largely about helping the highest number of people at a reasonable price tag. Of course, doing that isn't easy. But applying government services in an effective and efficient manner is what matters for any elected official.

Sadly, a lot of politicans don't measure up. What they do, instead, is convince certain favored groups that they "care." But every political decision -- like it or not -- has winners and losers. Barack Obama "cared" about unionized auto workers -- and the health of the Midwest economy -- so he fashioned a bailout of GM and Chrysler. But he didn't "care" so much about all those middle-class bondholders of GM and GMAC, and they lost all their money.

Maybe he was right. But "caring" ought not enter into it.

Locally, the biggest issue of the last year was the Coastal Commission vote to deny the redevelopment of the La Bahia Hotel. Led by local county supervisor Mark Stone, the commission "cared" about the impact on the environment. But does that mean that Stone and the commissioners "didn't care" about people who need jobs? Did Obama "not care" about jobs when he opposed the Keystone oil pipeline? Does Gov. Jerry Brown "care" more about prison guards than he does about teachers?

These are all tough issues, and reasonable people can disagree whether the decisions were good ones. But "caring" is hardly the touchstone. It's about effectiveness and good policy.

"Caring" is great in our personal lives. In politics, "caring" sometimes means taking care of one favored group while shutting down another. Give me an official who's competent and makes good decisions. Leave the caring to my friends and family.

Santa Cruz's strange economy

First in a series

By TOM HONIG

Santa Cruz has a very strange economy.

Those of us who live here are used to the vagaries of life in Santa Cruz -- high housing costs and low wages. Dramatic natural beauty and congested roads that would make a Southern Californian cringe. And here's another one: a small town atmosphere in a downtown that has some big-city social issues.

Most of us notice these contradictions, but sometimes it's nice to have someone from the outside give us some perspective.

The Santa Cruz Business Council featured a speaker last week by the name of Jeffrey Michael, an economist from University of the Pacific. Details of his talk are right here in a Sentinel story by business writer Jondi Gumz.

He portrayed a strange local economy: a total of $13 billion in personal income, but only $4.2 billion coming from local wages. (In fact, he said in most places, local wages are a major factor in the economy. Not here.)

What that means is that Santa Cruzans make their money either by commuting (that's the young people) or by investment income (older people.) The political implications are profound, and explain why there's a deepening divide in the political dialogue locally. Older, wealthier folks are happy in their living situation, and don't really care that much about jobs or growing a healthy local economy. Younger, more struggling people in their early working years would love not to commute over the hill; they'd rather do what the older folks do -- stay here.

Essentially, the economy boils down to this: Santa Cruz is a bedroom community of San Jose. People may not like to admit that, but it's true. 

(NEXT: The implications of our contradictions.)

Memo to Washington: we don't need a Senate hearing on the Penn State child abuse case

What, if anything, do Senate hearings achieve?

Certainly, there's a place for hearings before the Senate when it entails shining a spotlight on an issue that needs public attention. But when an issue is already front and center in the national consciousness -- do we really need to see our national leaders grandstanding?

It doesn't take a genius to recognize how awful the child-molestation case at Penn State really is. Everyone in America is clear on two things: that sexual assault on children is wrong, and that the failure to report a crime of that significance is also wrong.

But that doesn't keep our elected officials from wanting to go in front of the camera to express their outrage as well. U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., has requested a hearing before a Senate subcommittee.

He said he wanted to see how well federal laws protect children. Note to Sen. Casey: there are a lot of laws already. We poor ignorant citizens actually know that the Penn State situation is wrong and is outrageous. We don't need these senators to get up and tell us that.

We don't need any new laws here, folks. There are plenty of laws at the state level that govern child molest and the failure to report it.

Please, senators. Spare us the speechifying. We get it. Now how about doing something about the $15 trillion debt?

Technology is changing civic engagement

By TOM HONIG

If you limit yourself to traditional media, you might not know this:

"Hidden in all the bad news about California’s troubles is this delightful paradox: Californians, while living in a state that experts say is ungovernable, have within their reach new tools that give them greater power to govern themselves than ever before."

That's the first paragraph of a report by The New America Foundation called "Here Us Now?" and it details an entirely new, technology-driven approach to open government. And yes -- Santa Cruz is in on the revolution.

This is significant technology. It increases the ability for the average citizen to engage -- without the filter of interest groups. Here'es how the report describes the new tools:

"Technology is the reason. Often with little public notice or scrutiny, most of California’s 5,000-some local governments are experimenting with technologies to engage the public and improve services."

What does that look like for Santa Cruz? First, the Police Department has introduced an iPhone App that will issue warnings to folks in the event of an emergency.

The city also has engaged in a project to increase citizen participation in its budgeting process. The report features these words from Peter Koht of the city's Redevelopment Agency:

"The city, short of money, relied upon existing resources and staff, as well as community volunteers, to devise a technology project that would tell its story and elicit community input. Via a hosted feedback forum on the Internet, the city launched a website that provided background and contextual information on the budget problem, includ ing issue primers, financial documents and a blog with updates on state budget activities. Citizens were invited to register on the site with their email address, educate themselves on the fiscal challenges, and propose solutions for raising revenues or cutting costs. To reduce time spent on outlier responses, users were required to keep the conversation focused on specific topics. Online suggestions generated a response from the city and were voted on by other users. The top ten suggestions were used by the city to guide budget strategies."

Koht also reported more and better feedback than the traditional route -- town meetings and newspaper articles.

The city also has on the drawing board a program of particular interest to business. Thanks to the city's participation in a fellowship from a group called "Code for America," new technology will make it possible for a business to use a streamlined "one-stop" online application process for businesses to make various applications that previously have been overly complex. By the way, Santa Cruz was the only city of its size to win the fellowship.

This kind of technology is in its infancy. It's generally known as "Government 2.0" and it will soon be just one more path for the citizenry to engage with local government. 

Santa Cruz is hardly the only local jurisdiction that is using technology to open up government.

But in an era when suspicion of government is high, new technology is one way of closing the divide. The report is well worth a read.

UPDATED: Kemper murder case

By TOM HONIG

I can't even estimate how many stories I've covered since moving to Santa Cruz in 1971, but there's little doubt that the most memorable happened in the first year after going to work for the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

That would be the serial killers -- Herbert Mullin and Edmund Kemper -- although back then in the early '70s the term "serial killer" wasn't even being used. Now comes along the latest documentary, airing this Friday, as described in Tuesday's Sentinel.  It's entitled "The Co-Ed Butcher" -- a nice little understated title if there ever was one.

Several of those involved with the case were interviewed by the British filmmaker: former deputies Mickey Aluffi and Terry Medina, Kemper lawyer Jim Jackson and his wife, Cameron, who was a clinical psychologist on the case.  I'm rather casually mentioned in Tuesday's  paper as the unnamed Sentinel reporter who covered the case (ah, how soon we're forgotten).

I've now had a chance to see it. The documentary does a good job of detailing how the case unfolded, the shock of the community -- and does what some of these films fails to do, and that's focus on the victims.

Dr. Joel Fort, who testified on behalf of the prosecution n the case, makes a good point when he points out that media coverage often fails to explain the full impact on the victims and their families.

Of course, part of that is a reluctance on the part of reporters to intrude too much into the private lives and pain of the family left behind. I cringe sometimes when I see cameras stuck in the face of the victims' families. And all those years ago, there were a lot fewer media outlets. The reporters that followed the case -- mostly Marj Von B of the Watsonville Register-Pajaronian and me -- were reluctant to make their personal pain worse. Today's reporters are much more aggressive in that way.

I've never been sure why the Kemper case stirs such interest all these years later. It really was a horrible time in Santa Cruz -- three major murder cases (Mullin, Kemper and prior to that, John Linley Frazier, which pre-dated my time here).

It was a time of great change in Santa Cruz. UCSC had opened a few years earlier, and what was once known as the Undesirable Transient Element started being noticed around town. To some, the influx of hippie types seemed to go hand-in-glove with the sudden onset of major crime. To others, here in Santa Cruz to enjoy the fruits of easy living in the Age of Aquarius, the crime wave just seemed bizarre.

In retrospect, the police work and the criminal justice system handled the challenge well. The documentary demonstrates that well -- particularly in interviews with former sheriff's deputies Aluffi and Medina. It took awhile for Mullin and Kemper to be brought to justice, but they ultimately were caught, given a fair trial and then taken off the streets.

For those of us who have been around here a long time, this look back at the Kemper case will stir up memories. They did for me when the producers were interviewing me.

Yes, memories. But they're really not good ones.